/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 18, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 122 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Settlement in Search Ads Suit Gets Initial Approval 11000 REEDER: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Predmore Claims ABBVIE: Judge Dismisses Humira Patent Antitrust Class Action ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL: Parsons Balks at Deprived Medical Care AERIES SOFTWARE: Faces Gupta Suit in C.D. Calif. Over Data Breach ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Maglioli Suit Removed to District of New Jersey ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Responds to Lawsuit, Says Residents Already Ill ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Gianelli & Morris Files Class Action Complaint AUROBINDO PHARMA: Faces MSP Suit Over Adulterated Metformin Drugs AUSTRALIA: AUD212 MM Payout Cleared For Toxic Contamination Victims AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Holds Class Claims Moot AUTOZONE STORES: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Faces Purvis Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Pays Plaintiff Counsel Fees and Expenses BANK OF SOUTH TEXAS: Refuses to Pay PPP Agent Fees, Sanchez Says BITTREX INC: Added to Major Bitcoin Class-Action Lawsuit CARGILL: Faces Class Action Over Beef Price-Fixing CHARLESTON SOUTHERN: Taylor Demands Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure COLONIAL MUTUAL: CBA Acknowledges Slater & Gordon's Class Action COLONY CAPITAL: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action CONN'S INC: Rosen Notes of July 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline CRISP MARKETING: Rechul TCPA Suit Moved From Mass. to Florida CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action DELOITTE CONSULTING: Neal Sues Over Customer Data Theft DUKE UNIVERSITY: Talab Demands Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure ELANCO ANIMAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline ELANCO ANIMAL: Rosen Reminds Bondholders of July 20 Deadline EQUIFAX INC: $5.5MM Data Breach Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK EVENTBRITE INC: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Refund Policies EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid OT & Termination FAULT LINE: Faces Vargas Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations FD THOMAS: Sykes Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. FIRST-CITIZENS BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agents, Ratliff Says FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang Gearbox Problems FRANCIS GENERAL: Underpays Laborers, Garcia Claims FRENCH QUARTER: Land Seeks Proper Wages for Exotic Dancers FRONTIER AIRLINES: Refuses to Refund Tickets, Rivera-de Leon Says GERMBLOC INC: Lagorio Calls Hand Sanitizer Ads "Deceptive" GPB CAPITAL: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Automobiles GRAND CANYON: Lieff Cabraser Notes of July 13 Deadline GW UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, Mauldin Says HAMILTON BEACH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 21 Deadline HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation HYATT CORP: Hartstein Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation INVACOR SOLUTIONS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Kelley Claims JPMORGAN CHASE: Quinn Seeks to Recover Fees for PPP Loan Agents KELLY SERVICES: Faces Larry Suit Over Unpaid OT for Recruiters L'OREAL USA: Clarisonic Face Brush Not Waterproof, Marroquin Says LINEAGE CELL: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Ross Suit Set for June 23 LOUISIANA: Suit v. DOT Over Design That Caused 2016 Floods Proceeds MANPOWER US: Jackson Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Ill. MARIANI PACKING: Faces Jefferson Employment Suit in California MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Rocha Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MDL 2952: Eight Suits Over PPP Loans Transferred to W.D. Texas MICHIGAN: Agencies File Suit v. Boyce Hydro Amid Class Actions MIDLAND CREDIT: Landau Calls Collection Letter "Deceptive" MIDLAND FUNDING: Province, Howard Balk at Unlawful Debt Collection MIKE BLOOMBERG: Underpays Campaign Field Organizers, Sinclair Says NAT'L ASSOC OF REALTORS: Faces Rubenstein Antitrust Suit in Conn. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Argenas Says NEW YORK LIFE: Seeks Review of Decision in Chenensky Labor Suit OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Faces Sterling Securities Suit in New York OD INSPECTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Inspectors, Lu Claims ORACLE INC: Bid for Writ of Mandate or Writ of Prohibition Denied OVERSTOCK.COM: Missouri Tax Issues at Center of Class Action PACE FUNDING: Faces Solar Panel Finance Scheme Class Action PATTERN ENERGY: Faces Brill Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct. PERSONNEL STAFFING: Black Applicants Class Action Not Certified PETROPLAN USA: Saba Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime PORTLAND, OR: Protesters Sue City Over Tear Gas PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Post Balks at Proposed Sale to Alexion PRINCESS CRUISE: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Exposure PRINCESS CRUISE: Fails to Disclose COVID-19 Risks, Eicher Says PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Suits Over Lantheus Merger QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Title IX Class Action Settlement Updated QUOTEWIZARD.COM: Faces Perrong TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECH: Bergeron Seeks Tuition Fee Refund ROYAL BANK: American Video Suit Seeks Recovery of Agent Fees RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Class Action Ruling RYDER SYSTEM: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline SB CAPITAL: Santos Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Manual Laborers SCWORX CORP: Facing Suits Over COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits SCWORX CORP: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Class Action SILVER LAKE: Rachimi Alleges Insider Trading SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action Filing SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: July 22 Final Settlement Hearing STAPLES INC: Sanitizer Doesn't Kill 99.99% of Germs, Lagorio Says STATE FARM: Alissa's Flowers Suit Questions Overcharged Premiums STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suits Pending STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Accord Opt-Out Members File Suits TAMMAC HOLDINGS: Parrillo Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL TOYOTA MOTOR: Mendoza Product Liability Suit Moved to New Jersey TRAVEL GUARD: Gustafson Sues in Kansas Over Insurance Disputes TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Ober FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter U.S. BANCORP: Wage Class Action Dismissal Reversed U.S. PIZZA: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage & Tips UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Upfront Pricing Is Deceptive, Matthews Alleges UNITED NATIONS: Toks Banc Suit Asserts That COVID-19 Is a Fraud VAIL RESORTS: Malachowsky Wants Passes Refunds Over COVID Closure WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Salvagno Discrimination Suit Moved to D.N.J. WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 3 Deadline WELSPUN PIPES: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Vines FLSA Suit WILLIS TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Aon Merger WORLD TRIATHLON: Class Action Seeks Refund for Race Cancellations ZUORA INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation [*] Businesses Face Biometric, Post-COVID Class Action Risks [*] Insurance Claims Africa Mulls COVID-19 Loss Coverage Lawsuits ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Settlement in Search Ads Suit Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for Digital News Daily, reports that a federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a deal requiring 1-800 Contacts to pay around $15 million to settle class-action claims that it unlawfully restricted search advertising. "The 1-800 Settlement Agreement resulted from arm's-length negotiations between highly experienced counsel and falls within the range of possible approval," U.S. District Court Judge Tena Campbell in the Central District of Utah said in a decision issued this week. She will decide whether to grant final approval to the deal after a hearing in October. If the deal is finalize, it will resolve a 2016 lawsuit alleging that the 1-800 Contacts entered into agreements with competitors -- including Walgreens, Luxxotica and National Vision -- that aimed to prevent their search ads from appearing when consumers typed the phrase "1-800 Contacts" into a search engine. The retailers other than 1-800 Contacts previously agreed to settle for $24.9 million total. The class-action lawsuit against the retailers came shortly after the Federal Trade Commission brought an administrative complaint accusing 1-800 Contacts of violating antitrust laws by entering into agreements that restricted competitors' use of search marketing. Both the class-action lawsuit and the FTC's complaint focus on the time between 2004 and 2013, when 1-800 Contacts either sued or threatened to sue 15 rivals for trademark infringement, based on their alleged use of the brand-name 1-800 Contacts to trigger search ads. All of the rivals except Lens.com settled the matter by agreeing to restrictions on search marketing. Lens.com, which fought 1-800 Contacts in court, largely prevailed. 1-800 Contacts fought the FTC's case -- which was brought as an administrative complaint -- but agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit before trial. An FTC administrative judge ruled against 1-800 Contacts, and the full FTC upheld that decision by a 4-1 vote. Chairman Joe Simons said in a written opinion that the agreements may have deprived consumers of the ability to compare brands. "When information is withheld from consumers, it frustrates their ability to compare the prices and offerings of competitors," Simons wrote in a 59-page ruling issued in 2018. "This is as true today, when consumers search for goods online, as it was when people shopped open-air markets for vegetables every evening." 1-800 Contacts is appealing that ruling to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which has not yet decided the dispute. [GN] 11000 REEDER: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Predmore Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIA PREDMORE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. 11000 REEDER, LLC d/b/a BUCKS WILD and CURTIS B. WISE, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01570-C (N.D. Tex., June 12, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an exotic dancer from approximately August 2019 to December 2019. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other exotic dancers were required by Defendant to work 40 or more hours a week. But, Defendant compensated them solely through tips collected directly from customers, without any wages. The complaint asserts these claims: -- Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent contractor; -- Defendant failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 a week; and -- Defendant required dancers to pay fees and tip-outs, which constitute unlawful kick-backs under the FLSA. Curtis B. Wise is an owner and operator of Bucks Wild. 11000 Reeder, LLC is an adult nightclub offering live nude or semi-nude entertainment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: (817) 479-9229 Fax: (817) 887-1878 Emails: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com ABBVIE: Judge Dismisses Humira Patent Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Sagonowsky, writing for Fierce Pharma, reports that AbbVie reaps billions of dollars annually from its big-selling immunology medicine Humira, and, under deals with biosimilar makers, the drug is likely free from U.S. competition until 2023. A class of purchasers had sued over the company's defense strategy -- including its so-called "patent thicket" -- but a judge has now sided with AbbVie. While AbbVie's deals with biosimilar companies preserve high prices in the U.S. for several years, the company's strategy doesn't amount to an antitrust violation, U.S. District Judge Manish Shah wrote in an order on June 8. As AbbVie's initial patent on Humira approached expiration, the company applied for dozens of follow-up patents. The plaintiffs -- among them the City of Baltimore, an insurance trust fund for Miami police officers and a benefit plan for pipe trade workers in Minnesota -- alleged AbbVie illegally blocked competition for Humira by obtaining a "patent thicket" and deploying it on would-be competitors. With that thicket, the company sued companies seeking to market biosimilars and then inked deals to keep competing products off the U.S. market until 2023. As part of those deals, AbbVie gave biosim companies permission to launch in Europe despite existing patents there, the plaintiffs alleged. But after hearing arguments from both sides, the judge found the company's strategy to be legal. "AbbVie has exploited advantages conferred on it through lawful practices and to the extent this has kept prices high for Humira, existing antitrust doctrine does not prohibit it," he wrote in an order dismissing the lawsuit. The plaintiffs outlined a "disparate set of aggressive but mostly protected actions" that "even when considered broadly and together for their potential to restrain trade -- fall short of alleging the kind of competitive harm remedied by antitrust law," the judge added. Back in 2017, AbbVie began inking a series of patent settlements with biosimilar companies allowing them to launch U.S. Humira copycats in 2023. Already, biosims are chipping away at the company's market share in Europe. In 2019, the first full year after European biosimilars launched, the company's international sales for the drug fell by 28% to $4.3 billion. As AbbVie struck more and more biosimilar patent settlements, scrutiny increased. At a congressional hearing last year on drug pricing, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, asked AbbVie CEO Richard Gonzalez why prices remained high in the U.S. while European patients had access to cheaper biosimilars. Gonzalez responded that he believed AbbVie had struck a "reasonable balance" with the deals, although he knew they might not be "popular." The company's first patent expiration comes in 2022, and biosims will launch less than a year later, he said. But AbbVie knows U.S. competition to Humira is eventually coming, and last year it snagged a $63 billion buyout of Botox maker Allergan. The deal closed last month. Meanwhile, the company is also marketing Humira follow-ups Rinvoq and Skyrizi. [GN] ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL: Parsons Balks at Deprived Medical Care ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES W. PARSONS, III, Plaintiff, v. MARK PETTWAY, SHERIFF OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA, and ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00806-AMM (N.D. Ala., June 8, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a class of all other persons similarly situated to him, consisting of detainees and inmates of the Jefferson County, Alabama jail who have been prescribed medication for acute or chronic illness, or other medical conditions, but who do not receive such medications due to prison policies. Sheriff Pettway operates the Jefferson County, Alabama Jail, where ACH is under contract to provide, and purports to provide, medical care. However, due to the policies and customs of Pettway and ACH, medical care at the jail is so deficient as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In particular, and without limitation of the foregoing, Sheriff Pettway and ACH cause pre-trial detainees and inmates serving sentences after conviction to go without medications prescribed for the inmates either before or during detention, despite knowing full well that the medications are required for health and life, that refusing to administer the medications causes unnecessary pain and suffering, and that refusing the medications hastens death. The refusal to prescribe medication often persists over the course of not merely days, but months, in the face of symptoms that even laypeople would recognize as medically hazardous. Plaintiff is a single male who now suffers and at all relevant times has suffered from Multiple Sclerosis. On June 7, 2018, Plaintiff was detained in the Jefferson County Jail. After Plaintiff was detained, Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family both informed jailers and personnel at ACH that Plaintiff suffered from MS and that Plaintiff required medications to treat his MS. On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff's doctor Dr. Richard Diethelm wrote a letter to the jail staff informing them that Plaintiff was an MS patient and that the absence of medications would likely lead to a relapse. Plaintiff still did not receive his medications. Despite having actual, subjective knowledge of Plaintiff's MS and need for medication, the jailers and ACH refused to administer Plaintiff's medication. Defendants denied Plaintiff's requests for medications because such was their practice for all inmates or detainees, except a limited number of persons who first presented symptoms while detained. Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc. is an Illinois-based medical center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Ozment, Esq. R. Taylor Abbot, Jr., Esq. FRANK OZMENT ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 217 Country Club Park, Box 501 Birmingham, AL 35213 Telephone: (205) 413-9973 Facsimile: (205) 617-9714 E-mail: frankozmentlaw@gmail.com rtabbot1@gmail.com - and - Andrew C. Allen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW C. ALLEN, LLC 217 Country Club Park, Box 501 Birmingham, AL 35213 Telephone: (205) 747-1903 E-mail: aallen@acallenlaw.com AERIES SOFTWARE: Faces Gupta Suit in C.D. Calif. Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANURAG GUPTA and by and through him, D.G. and V.G., his minor children, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AERIES SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00995-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal., May 28, 2020), alleges that Aeries did not adequately safeguard the data of Plaintiffs D.G. and V.G., and they and thousands of other students are now the victims of a large-scale, long-lasting data breach that will impact them for years to come. In November 2019, Aeries began internally investigating an attempt of unauthorized persons to access data through Aeries School Information System. According to Aeries, it did not discover any unauthorized access, but nevertheless, it updated the Aeries SIS on 18 December 20, 2019, to fix security deficiencies it discovered during its internal investigation. In January 2020, Aeries learned that one of its school district clients whose students' (as well as the students' parents' and guardians') personal information was stored locally on the school districts' database and processed through the Aeries SIS, had their local database subjected to unauthorized access. The Plaintiffs contend that despite having knowledge of the Data Breach as early as November 12 2019, and certainly no later than January 2020, Aeries did not notify its school district customers of the Data Breach until April 27, 2020, when it issued a "Notice of Data Breach" to school district customers using Aeries Hosting. Plaintiffs D.G. and V.G. are minor students at the ABC Unified School District, which is one of many public school districts in California that utilize the Aeries School Information System offering to manage student data. Plaintiff Gupta is the natural parent of the Plaintiffs D.G. and V.G., and his data was also compromised in the same data breach. Aeries touts that it offers "industry leading student data management system software."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Maglioli Suit Removed to District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ESTATE OF JOSEPH MAGLIOLI, BERNARD MAGLIOLI and DANTE MAGLIOLI, and ESTATE OF DALE PETRY and CHRISTOPHER PETRY v. ANDOVER SUBACUTE REHABILITATION CENTER I; ANDOVER SUBACUTE REHABILITATION CENTER II; ALTITUDE HEALTH SERVICES INC.; ALTITUDE INVESTMENTS, LTD; ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE; CHAIM "MUTTY" SCHEINBAUM; LOUIS SCHWARTZ; HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10; and ABC AND XYZ Corporations 1-10, Case No. SSX-L-176-20 (Filed April 28, 2020), was removed from the Court of the State of New Jersey in and for the County of Sussex to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 29, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06605-KM-ESK to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are culpable for failure to properly administer and utilize equipment and supplies, which were designated counter measures to combat the COVID-19 outbreak, including to items identified as personal protective equipment, such as facemasks. Andover operates a nursing home. Altitude is a health care service provider. Healthcare Services provides housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance, and food services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Marchese, Esq. THE MARCHESE LAW FIRM, LLC 93 Spring Street, Suite 300 Newton, NJ 07860 The Defendants are represented by: Malinda A. Miller, Esq. S. Christopher Marino, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Blvd., 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 577-6260 Facsimile: (973) 577-6261 ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Responds to Lawsuit, Says Residents Already Ill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rodrigo Torrejon, writing for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, reports that in a response to a class action lawsuit filed by the son of a man who died from complications of the coronavirus at a beleaguered nursing home, the home and its owners claimed that the residents were already very ill and frail and would not have benefited from medical aid or treatment. In an answer filed Wednesday, attorneys for Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation Center I and II and its owners Chaim "Mutty" Scheinbaum and Louis Schwartz claimed that the "natural degenerative changes" of the human body would have led to residents' deaths, regardless of any intervention or treatment. The answer is in response to a lawsuit that claims at least 80 people died because of widespread negligence and malpractice by the nursing home's management and owners. The Andover facility was cast into a grim spotlight when a makeshift morgue crammed with 17 bodies was discovered the day after Easter Sunday. Since the discovery, the nursing home has remained one of the hardest hit of long term care facilities and nursing homes ravaged by the virus. "Plaintiffs' conditions were the direct and proximate result of the natural degenerative changes of the human body, and have ‘and would have' occurred despite any and all intervention, prescription and treatment, or lack thereof, by these defendants," the nursing home responded in the lawsuit. Calls to the attorney for the nursing home and its ownership were not immediately returned. A spokeswoman for the nursing home and its ownership declined to comment on the litigation. As of Wednesday, 78 residents and two staff members had died at the sprawling facility, according to state department of health statistics. The nursing home, one of the lower-rated in the nation by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, consists of Andover I on one side of Mulford Road, and Andover II — the epicenter of the home's coronavirus outbreak — on the other. Andover II, the larger building, has 543 beds and houses dementia and Alzheimer's disease patients and residents with mental health issues. The number of deaths at the facility has led to Andover Township having the most coronavirus-related deaths per capita in New Jersey. In late April, Bernard Maglioli, son of Joseph Maglioli, filed the individual and class action lawsuit in Sussex County Superior Court, alleging widespread malpractice and negligence on the part of the nursing home, management and the home's owners, that directly led to his father's death, along with at least 80 other residents at the time of the filing. The lawsuit claims that nursing home management should have been aware of the coronavirus as far back as January and of nursing home residents' particular susceptibility to the virus, but that center management did not prepare. The lawsuit also claims that the center's management initially provided masks only to registered nurses, ignoring other staff who interacted with residents, including nursing assistants, housekeepers and therapists. In Wednesday's response, the attorney for the nursing home and its owners denied all of the lawsuit's claims, saying the residents were frail and emphasized that the nursing home, its management and owners all did their job correctly. "Any conditions of which Plaintiffs complain or from which Plaintiffs presently suffers are unrelated to any of the incidents referred to in the Complaint or to actions or treatments that were performed or ordered by these defendants, either by causation, exacerbation, or both," the answer reads. The answer to the lawsuit also claims that the nursing home is immune from the lawsuit's claims under an executive order signed by Gov. Phil Murphy and a bill signed into law in April. The executive order granted healthcare workers treating coronavirus patients from malpractice lawsuits, to encourage volunteers to help stop the spread of the virus. "Any healthcare facility...shall be immune from civil liability for any damages alleged to have been sustained as a result of an act or omission undertaken in good faith in the course of providing services in support of the State's COVID-19 response by one or more of its agents, officers, employees, servants, representatives or volunteers, if, and to the extent, such agent, officer, employee, servant, representative or volunteer is immune from liability, whether or not such immunity is otherwise available under current law," the executive order reads. The law, signed by Murphy in April, provides wide immunity from legal liability to hospitals and healthcare workers on the front-lines of the coronavirus, including if a patient was injured or died during their care. The immunity, meant to ensure people would volunteer to help battle the crisis, does not extend to instances when there were "acts or omissions constituting a crime, actual fraud, actual malice, gross negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct," according to the law. In a previous statement, Scheinbaum reiterated claims that the facility had taken steps like social distancing and separating sick patients to mitigate the crisis, but acknowledged the difficulties of containing a spread within a nursing home. The nursing home's response was filed the same day the state released a $500,000 report that showed nursing homes in the state, where more than 6,000 residents and employees have died during the pandemic, were underprepared and under-staffed to deal with the coronavirus crisis and require tougher state scrutiny. The 100-page report, compiled by a consultant hired by Murphy's administration, showed that many nursing homes had previously been cited for infection control deficiencies before the coronavirus struck. The report also noted that nursing homes generally are not sufficiently tied into the larger system of health care, suggesting they did not have strong relationships with hospital emergency departments. The state's report itself comes after a NJ Advance Media investigation revealed a staggering, top-to-bottom failure by the state to react quickly to the coronavirus crisis and a string of missteps at long term care facilities in New Jersey. Among the missteps are state inspectors waiting more than a month after the state's first death linked to the coronavirus to do on-site inspections of vulnerable long term care facilities, months after a similar crisis had already unfolded in Washington state. [GN] ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: Gianelli & Morris Files Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- The California insurance law firm Gianelli & Morris, on May 22, 2020, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the state of California for the County of Los Angeles. The case is John P. Gutierrez v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company (Case No. 20STCV19949). The complaint seeks money damages for breach of contract as well as a declaratory judgment regarding Anthem Life's notice to certain policyholders that it was cancelling their policies. The complaint alleges that the notice given to policyholders fails to conform to California's legal requirements. Specifically, the complaint deals with Anthem Life's cancellation of an individual health insurance policy, Individual PPO HSA Compatible, Contract Code T160. According to court documents, in late June 2019, Anthem Life mailed a notice of cancellation to policyholders under Contract Code T160 that this plan was to be discontinued as of December 31, 2019. In its class action complaint, Gianelli & Morris alleges that Anthem Life's cancellation notice was improper under two provisions of the California Insurance Code – section 10273.6(d) and section 791.10(e). The complaint alleges that Anthem Life chose to withdraw from the state, but Anthem Life failed to disclose it was doing so, as required by law. The complaint further alleges that Anthem Life attempted to avoid the five-year ban on offering policies after withdrawal by directing the canceled policyholders toward products offered by its sister company, Blue Cross of California, which it referred to as "Anthem Blue Cross." "Insurance companies that want to avoid their obligation to provide continued health coverage in California must follow the rules," said lead attorney Rob Gianelli. "Compliance with a mandatory notice law should never be compromised by a company's economic interest." The complaint alleges that its lead plaintiff, John P. Gutierrez, had to pay higher premiums, suffer from claims being uncovered, and incur other expenses as a result of Anthem Life's actions. The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court that Anthem Life violated the California Insurance Code and further seeks money damages for the alleged harm imposed. The lawsuit is being brought on behalf of Mr. Gutierrez and all others similarly situated. Gianelli & Morris is a Los-Angeles based insurance law firm concentrating its practice in the representation of California insurance policyholders who have been denied benefits or otherwise been the subject of maltreatment by their insurance company. [GN] AUROBINDO PHARMA: Faces MSP Suit Over Adulterated Metformin Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------------- MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity v. AUROBINDO PHARMA, LTD.; AUROBINDO USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA, LLC; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS; and JOHN DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:20-cv-06609-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., May 29, 2020), is brought on behalf OF MSP and similarly situated healthcare insurers seeking to recover payments unlawfully induced by the Defendants that the Plaintiff and Class Members made for the Defendants' contaminated and adulterated Metformin drugs. Metformin is the most prescribed oral pharmaceutical drug for patients with type 2 diabetes, especially overweight patients. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants knowingly and with an intent to defraud, concealed from the Plaintiff and Class Members the material facts concerning their pervasive cGMP violations, and made express and implied representations to the Plaintiff's assignors and Class Members that their Metformin drugs conformed to applicable standards of quality, purity, identity, and strength, were not adulterated, and were merchantable, fit for human consumption and fit for their intended purpose when, in truth and fact, the Metformin drugs were contaminated with a probable human carcinogen. The Defendants have been engaged in manufacturing, selling, and distributing MCDs in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 AUSTRALIA: AUD212 MM Payout Cleared For Toxic Contamination Victims ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Fellner, writing for The Age (Australia), reports that a federal court judge has approved the AU$212 million settlement of three class action lawsuits over firefighting contamination caused by the Department of Defence. In a judgment, Justice Michael Lee also directed additional money towards a family who suffered "remarkable" abuse, including being spat on by other community members, after taking a leading role in the class action. The action was launched by residents near military bases at Williamtown, near Newcastle, Oakey in Queensland and Katherine in the Northern Territory whose properties were polluted with toxic per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals [PFAS]. Justice Lee acknowledged the disillusionment of some residents who feared the compensation offered would not be adequate. However Justice Lee concluded the settlement was not only fair and reasonable, but could be "described as excellent" when compared to the total possible sum that could have been recovered at trial. Williamtown residents settled the case for 97 per cent of the maximum amount they could have won at trial, while for Oakey the figure was 103 per cent and Katherine 109 per cent. A trial would have carried a significant degree of risk as complex questions of causation and liability were debated, Justice Lee said. He noted some of the angst related to deductions from the settlement that will leave victims with $126 million of their $212 million payout. The litigation funder that bankrolled the case, Omni Bridgeway, will take $53.1 million in profits and $940,000 for out of pocket costs. Lawyers from Dentons and Shine law firms will receive $30.1 million to cover their costs. Around $2 million will be used to distribute the funds and more than $100,000 will go to the community members who took a leading role in the case. Justice Lee noted the legal fees might seem "staggering" and "extraordinarily large" to the uninitiated. However, Omni Bridgeway had taken $35 million less than what it was contractually entitled to. Chief executive Andrew Saker told the Herald this was a "proactive measure to improve the returns to group members" and the step was taken before the announcement of a parliamentary inquiry into litigation funding. "Objections represented approximately three percent of group members," he noted. An independent expert appointed by the court had found the costs incurred by Shine and Dentons lawyers to be reasonable. Justice Lee noted legal costs could have been reduced if the case had been run as one class action covering all three towns. Mr Saker stressed this was a choice made by clients rather than Omni, and efforts were made to reduce duplication of costs. Justice Lee noted the live debate about litigation funders and said they often misused the phrase "access to justice" to justify what at its heart was "a commercial endeavour to make money". However, without the litigation funder, it was unlikely victims of PFAS contamination would have been able to battle for compensation in court, Justice Lee said. Rather they would have been left to request compensation "in circumstances where they would have been the subject of a significant inequality of arms". Williamtown resident Lindsay Clout labelled the approval "momentous" but argued that "communities should not need to take the very people charged with protecting them . . . to court". [GN] AUTOZONE INC: Ninth Circuit Holds Class Claims Moot --------------------------------------------------- Adam Belzberg and Rachel Herrington of Stoel Rives wrote in an article for JD Supra, regarding the Ninth Circuit holding class claims moot when class representative settled individual claims without retaining a financial stake in the outcome of class claims. On June 3, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Brady v. Autozone, No. 19-35122, slip op. at 1 (9th Cir. June 3, 2020), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/06/03/19-35122.pdf, that class claims become moot when "a class representative voluntarily settles only his individual claims without indicating any financial stake in the unresolved class claims." Michael Brady filed a putative class action complaint against AutoZone Stores, Inc., and Autozoners LLC, alleging violations of Washington's minimum wage and meal break laws. After the district court denied Brady's motion for class certification and declined to modify its ruling, Brady settled his individual claims against AutoZone. The settlement agreement did not "settle or resolve Brady's Class Claims" but "did not provide that Brady would be entitled to any financial reward if the unresolved class claims were ultimately successful." The district court entered a final judgment and Brady appealed the class certification rulings. In deciding whether what effect the settlement of individual claims had on class claims, the Ninth Circuit built on previous decisions in Narouz v. Charter Communications, LLC, 591 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2010), holding that a class representative retains a continued financial interest in class claims where the class representative would "receive an ‘award enhancement fee' if a class were certified and that he did not release claims for ‘attorney's fees and costs,' " Evon v. Law Offices of Signey Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012), holding that class claims are not moot where the "settlement agreement did not expressly disclaim the class representative's class claims," and Campion v. Old Republic Prot. Co., 775 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014), holding that even where a settlement agreement did not explicitly resolve class claims the class representative must still retain a financial interest in the class claims to avoid mootness. Here, the Ninth Circuit held that when a class representative voluntarily settles his individual claims he must "do more than expressly leave class claims unresolved to avoid mootness" - he must retain a financial stake in the outcome of the class claims "as evidenced by an agreement." Because Brady did not retain a financial stake in the class claims under the settlement agreement and did not produce any evidence of "an agreement to pay costs unless the class is certified," the Ninth Circuit concluded the class claims were rendered moot. [GN] AUTOZONE STORES: BakerHostetler Attorney Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- "Why, no, a plaintiff can't eat his cake and have it, too," wrote Greg Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra. It is often the case that plaintiffs who cannot proceed as a class will settle their individual claims. But what if they really want an incentive award, or their attorneys really want a class-size fee award? Can they settle the individual claim and then continue to chase the class allegations? Nope. At least that’s what the Ninth Circuit just held in Brady v. AutoZone Stores, Inc., Case No. 19-35122 (9th Cir., June 3, 2020). In the Brady case, the plaintiff brought relatively straightforward claims for alleged missed break periods under the law of the state of Washington. After what the court described as "several years of litigation," the district court found no basis, and refused, to certify a class. At that point, the plaintiff settled his individual claims for $5,000 plus unspecified attorneys’ fees, but purported not to have resolved his "Class Claims." Following the entry of final judgment, the plaintiff appealed the prior denial of certification. The Ninth Circuit concluded easily that the settlement mooted the class claims, and it dismissed the appeal. It found that the plaintiff could not pursue class claims simply because he had not dismissed them, but needed a genuine financial stake in the outcome of the class claims. It rejected the notion that his desire for an incentive award or fear of liability for costs advanced by his attorneys would constitute such an interest. Most cases don’t warrant class action treatment. We’ve noted similar tactics used by unsuccessful claimants under the FLSA – but, like defendants, class action plaintiffs may find alternatives to litigating a case to its full conclusion lengthy and expensive. The bottom line: A putative class action representative cannot gain a right of appeal of a denial of certification by settlement of his or her individual claims. [GN] AVEANNA HEALTHCARE: Faces Purvis Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- TEAIRRA PURVIS, individually, on behalf of her minor child, J.A., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AVEANNA HEALTHCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02277-LMM (N.D. Ga., May 28, 2020), arises out of a July 2019 cyberattack and data breach at Aveanna's medical facilities. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and 166,077 Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack, says the complaint. In addition, the Plaintiffs and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to Aveanna, its officials, and agents--was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs seeks to address the Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained. Aveanna provides health care services. The Company offers pediatric skilled nursing, therapy, autism, enteral nutrition, and adult services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen Hormozdi, Esq. HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC 1770 Indian Trial Lilburn Road, Suite 175 Norcross, GA 30093 Telephone: (678) 395-7795 Facsimile: (866) 929-2434 E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. David K. Lietz, Esq. Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com gklinger@masonllp.com AYTU BIOSCIENCE: Pays Plaintiff Counsel Fees and Expenses --------------------------------------------------------- Aytu BioScience, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission datedJune 12, 2020, that the company has agreed to pay the plaintiff's legal fees and expenses in the case, Franchi v. Aytu BioScience Inc., et al.,, Case No. 1:19-cv-02204-LPS (D. Del.). On October 10, 2019, Aytu BioScience, Inc. entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Cerecor Inc. ("Cerecor") pursuant to which the company agreed to purchase certain assets, and assume certain liabilities, from Cerecor (the "Acquisition"). In connection with the Acquisition, the company agreed to pay Cerecor aggregate consideration of approximately $32 million, consisting of: (i) $4.5 million in cash; (ii) $12.5 million in shares of Aytu Series G Preferred Stock; and (iii) the assumption of $16.575 million of obligations owed by Cerecor. As a company with its common stock listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market ("Nasdaq"), the company is subject to Nasdaq's stockholder approval requirements as set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5635. In connection with the future convertibility of the Series G Preferred Stock issued to Cerecor in connection with the Acquisition, the company was required to obtain stockholder approval of the convertibility of the Series G Preferred Stock under Nasdaq Rules 5635(d) and 5635(a)(2) (the "Conversion Proposal"). The Acquisition was announced on October 10, 2019 and closed on October 31, 2019 and stockholder approval of the Conversion Proposal was not a condition to the Acquisition. In the event that the company did not receive stockholder approval for the Conversion Proposal, the Series G Preferred Stock would not have converted into shares of the company's common stock but the failure of its stockholders to approve the Conversion Proposal would not have the effect of unwinding the Acquisition. Separately, on October 11, 2019, the company entered into Securities Purchase Agreements (the "Purchase Agreements") providing for the issuance and sale of Series F Convertible Preferred Stock and warrants (the "PIPE Warrants"). In connection with the issuance of the Series F Convertible Preferred Stock and the PIPE Warrants, the company was required to obtain stockholder approval of the convertibility of the Series F Convertible Preferred Stock and the exercisability of the PIPE Warrants under Nasdaq Rule 5635(d) (the "Nasdaq Proposal," and collectively with the Conversion Proposal, the "Proposals"). On November 4, 2019, the company filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a preliminary proxy statement (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement") soliciting the requisite stockholder approval of (i) the Proposals and (ii) an amendment to our Certificate of Incorporation to increase the number of the company's issued and outstanding shares of common stock from 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 (the "Charter Amendment"). On November 18, 2019, the company received a comment letter from the staff of the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance (the "Staff") requesting that the company provides disclosure required by Items 11, 13 and 14 of Schedule 14A in the Preliminary Proxy Statement with respect to the Acquisition. In response to the Staff's comment, and pursuant to Item 11 of Schedule 14A, the company revised the disclosure in the Preliminary Proxy Statement to clarify that the shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of the Series G Preferred Stock did not have preemptive rights. The company also respectfully noted to the Staff that because the shares of common stock issuable upon the conversion of the Series G Preferred Stock were the same class as the company's currently outstanding common stock, the information called for by Item 202 of Regulation S-K was not required other than as set forth in Item 11(b) of Schedule 14A. The company also noted to the Staff that the disclosure in the Preliminary Proxy Statement, other than Item 13(a) of Schedule 14A, covers the requirements of Item 11. With respect to Items 13 and 14 and Note A of Schedule 14A, the company advised the Staff that it previously considered the instruction in Note A to Schedule 14A in determining whether to include in the Preliminary Proxy Statement the disclosures required by Items 13 and 14 of Schedule 14A in connection with the approval of mergers and acquisitions by stockholders. After review and consideration, the company determined, and continues to believe, that the instruction in Note A is inapplicable to the Proposals because they do not involve a solicitation seeking stockholder approval of the authorization of additional securities which are to be used to acquire another company; rather, the Proposals sought stockholder approval, in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635. Beginning on November 20, 2019, the members of the company's board of directors were named as defendants in three purported stockholder class actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by three of the company's stockholders: Pliscott v. Disbrow, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0933-AGB; Kirschenbaum v. Aytu BioScience, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0984-AGB; and Sebree v. Disbrow, et al., C.A. No. 2019-1011-AGB (collectively, the "Actions"). The complaints alleged that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or disclosure by failing to disclose to the company's stockholders all material information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the Acquisition, Purchase Agreements, Proposals, and Charter Amendment. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs sought to hold the company's directors liable for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties. After the complaints were filed, the company determined to include minor additional disclosures concerning the Acquisition, Purchase Agreements, Proposals, and Charter Amendment in a definitive proxy statement (the "Definitive Proxy") filed with the SEC on December 23, 2019 to moot plaintiffs' claims. Although the company believed and continue to believe that the disclosure in the Preliminary Proxy Statement was sufficient as evidenced by the SEC's completion of their review after the company responded to their comment letter, the company included the minor additional disclosures to settle the plaintiffs' claims due to the costs related to litigation. On February 5, 2020, the Court approved a notice under which the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Actions with prejudice as to themselves only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class member. The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application of plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Definitive Proxy filed on December 23, 2019. The company subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Actions. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness. In addition, on June 9, 2020, the company agreed to pay the plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorney's fees and expenses in the Franchi v. Aytu BioScience Inc., et al.,, Case No. 1:19-cv-02204-LPS (D. Del.). Aytu said, "We have now settled the outstanding litigation related to the Preliminary Proxy Statement." Aytu BioScience, Inc., a specialty healthcare company, focuses on developing and commercializing novel products in the field of hypogonadism, insomnia, and male infertility in the United States and internationally. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado. BANK OF SOUTH TEXAS: Refuses to Pay PPP Agent Fees, Sanchez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Antonio Sanchez, PC, on behalf of a class of similarly situated businesses and individuals v. Bank of South Texas, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, and Frost Bank, Case No. 7:20-cv-00139 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of the monies, owed in agent fees to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class. By refusing to pay agent fees, the Defendants retain for themselves all of the statutory fees allotted by the Government for Agents as part of the Paycheck Protection Program, despite the work performed by the Agents in working with Borrowers to secure the loans under the program, and directing the Borrowers to the Defendants, the Plaintiff alleges. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created the $349 billion PPP for small businesses providing funds for loans to be originated from February 15, 2020, through June 30, 2020. The PPP was created to provide American small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance, with a certain percentage forgivable if utilized to retain employees and fund payrolls. Juan Antonio Sanchez is the owner of Sanchez PC and is a licensed CPA in good standing since 1987. Sanchez PC assists taxpayers and small businesses with taxes in McAllen, Texas and the surrounding communities. The Defendants are financial institutions, which marketed, promoted, and took applications for PPP loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory S. Fein, Esq. CORY FEIN LAW FIRM 712 Main Street, Suite 800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (281) 254-7717 Facsimile: (530) 748-0601 E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com BITTREX INC: Added to Major Bitcoin Class-Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Greg Thomson, writing for Decrypt, reports that cryptocurrency exchanges Poloniex and Bittrex have been named as defendants in the ongoing court case against Tether and Bitfinex, which alleges that the USDT stablecoin issuer purposely inflated the price of Bitcoin between 2016 and 2017. The class-action lawsuit claims Bitfinex and Tether manipulated the Bitcoin price all the way to its all-time high of $20,000 in December 2017. The plaintiffs allege that Tether issued billions of USDT to itself out of thin air, which it then moved to the Bitfinex exchange - with which it shares executive management—and used it to purchase, and inflate the price of, Bitcoin. On May 14, multiple class-action lawsuits against Bitfinex were consolidated together into one, filed in the Southern District of New York. But today, the complaint was amended to add US cryptocurrency exchanges Bittrex and Poloniex to the list of defendants. Stuart Hoegner, general counsel for Bitfinex, replied, "Even after taking three full months to amend their complaint, the plaintiffs' allegations remain untethered to either the facts or the law. They conflate perceived correlation with causation in an effort to prop up theories that are untrue and unsupportable." "With the willing assistance of Bittrex, Inc. ("Bittrex") and Poloniex LLC ("Poloniex"), two other crypto-exchanges, Bitfinex and Tether used fraudulently issued USDT to make strategically timed, massive purchases of crypto commodities just when the price of those commodities was falling," the document stated. "Defendants' manipulative purchases caused prices to skyrocket. From December 2016 to December 2017, the price of bitcoin increased twenty-five-fold, from $800 to $20,000, largely due to Defendants' price manipulation," it added. The plaintiffs, named as Matthew Script, Benjamin Leibowitz, Jason Leibowitz, Aaron Leibowitz, and Pinchas Goldshtein, are all US citizens who purchased various cryptocurrencies during the period in question. All seek reparations for losses they incurred when the Bitcoin bubble finally burst. After reaching a peak value of $20,000, Bitcoin's price started nosediving. Bitcoin went on to lose 84% of its value by December 2018, falling to a low of $3,191. The rest of the cryptocurrency market followed, with many altcoins losing in excess of 95% of their value—and many have never recovered since. [GN] CARGILL: Faces Class Action Over Beef Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------- WCCO reports that a class action lawsuit filed over the weekend accuses the nation's top meatpackers -- Cargill, JBS, National Beef, and Tyson -- of conspiring to artificially increase the price of beef and thereby boost their profit margins. The lawsuit, filed in Minneapolis federal court on behalf of a Chicago grocer, says that the meatpackers, which together control more than 80% of the industry, used their position to limit the supply of cattle and fix the price of beef, leading to "historically high" margins in the market. This scheme has been operating since at least the start of 2015, the lawsuit says, adding that one consequences of the conspiracy was a spike in beef prices during the COVID-19 pandemic. This spike in prices, and the shutdown of meatpacking plants across the Midwest, prompted investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture. The results of those investigations have yet to be fully released, although details have appeared in the press. Recently, other meat and fish industries have faced similar antitrust lawsuits. The CEO of Pilgrim's Pride, a chicken manufacturer, was indicted on charges of price fixing. [GN] CHARLESTON SOUTHERN: Taylor Demands Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CHARLESTON SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2020CP1002357 (S.C. Com. Pleas, May 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of people, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester at CSU, and who, because of CSU's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, were deprived the benefits of the education for which they paid, and/or the services or facilities for which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. On March 11, 2020, the Defendant announced it was cancelling all in-person classes and moving to online-only classes. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has announced conflicting answers as to whether room and board rebates will be refundable directly to the student rather than held as a future credit. As a result of Defendant's closure of facilities and cancellation of services and events, the Defendant has not delivered the educational services, facilities, access, and opportunities that Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid for, says the complaint. The action seeks refunds of the amounts the Plaintiff and putative class members are owed, prorated to the amount of time that remained in the Spring semester when classes moved online and campus services ceased being provided, along with other pleaded damages. CSU is a private university in North Charleston, South Carolina, with a total enrollment of approximately 3,724 students. CSU received $2,880,272 in federal stimulus money under the CARES Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Slavin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA E. SLAVIN, LLC PO Box 762 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: 843 619-7338 Facsimile: 888 246-8914 E-mail: josh@attorneycarolina.com COLONIAL MUTUAL: CBA Acknowledges Slater & Gordon's Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that the Commonwealth Bank of Australia acknowledged the class action proceeding filed by Slater and Gordon. The class action relates to consumer credit insurance for credit cards and personal loans sold between January 1, 2010 and March 7, 2018. The company is reviewing the claim and will provide any update as required. It is reviewing the claim brought against Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society filed by Slater and Gordon. [GN] COLONY CAPITAL: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY). If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Colony Capital, Inc. (CLNY) If you suffered a loss, contact us at http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/colony-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7183&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 Class Period: August 9, 2019 - May 7, 2020 Allegations against CLNY include that: (i) Colony's sale of its industrial real estate portfolio and the bifurcation of Colony Credit Real Estate's portfolio were foreseeably likely to negatively impact Colony's financial and operating results; (ii) certain of Colony's remaining portfolio companies carried unsustainable levels of debt secured by hotels and healthcare-related properties and were thus at a significant risk of default; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq., is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 E-mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CONN'S INC: Rosen Notes of July 14 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Conn's, Inc. (NASDAQ: CONN) between September 3, 2019 and December 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important July 14, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Conn's investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Conn's class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1857.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS 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 made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Conn's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Conn's was experiencing an increase in first payment defaults and 60-plus day delinquencies; (2) as a result, Conn's was reasonably likely to record an increase to its provision for bad debts; (3) Conn's made certain underwriting adjustments, including tightening its standards for new customers and online applicants; (4) as a result, Conn's same-store sales would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Conn's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1857.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. 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. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ [GN] CRISP MARKETING: Rechul TCPA Suit Moved From Mass. to Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as WERONIKA RECHUL, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. CRISP MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10171 (Filed Jan. 28, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) on May 28, 2020. The Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-61042-RAR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Rodolfo A Ruiz. The suit demands $5 million in damages. The case involves a campaign by Crisp to market its services through the use of automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls and automated text messages in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff contends that by using an automated telephone dialing system to send thousands of automated telemarketing text messages without first obtaining the prior express written consent of recipients, Crisp violated the TCPA. Crisp offers consulting services in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 E-mail: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com The Defendant is represented by: Artin Betpera, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7149 Telephone: (657) 266-1051 E-mail: betpera.artin@wbd-us.com CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX). If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX) If you suffered a loss, contact us at http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7183&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020 Class Period: May 17, 2018 - May 13, 2020 Allegations against CTMX include that: (i) CytomX had downplayed issues with CX-072's efficacy observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-072 clinical program; (ii) CytomX had similarly downplayed issues with CX-2009's efficacy and safety observed in the PROCLAIM-CX-2009 clinical program; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 E-mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] DELOITTE CONSULTING: Neal Sues Over Customer Data Theft ------------------------------------------------------- The case KATHY NEAL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04362 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of individuals who suffered, and continue to suffer, damages as a result of Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard customers' Personally Identifying Information (PII) such as their names, email addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and/or bank account and/or routing information. As part of the federal government's Pandemic Unemployment Assistance ("PUA") program, the Defendant formed contracts with various state agencies -- including the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the Illinois Department of Employment Security, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment and the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services -- to help those states administer the PUA program by designing, building, and maintaining web-based portals through which individuals may apply for unemployment benefits and communicate with state officials. Plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits through the web-portal created and maintained by Defendant, and Plaintiff's PII was left publicly accessible. As a result of the Plaintiff's data being exposed, credit inquiries were made in her name to open accounts that she did not authorize. By way of example, Plaintiff received notice of credit inquiries in her name without her consent with Westlake Financial Services and with FingerHut. As a result of this fraudulent activity, Plaintiff's credit score dropped drastically. According to the complaint, credit Score points are valuable. As one adds points to his score, he'll have access to more credit products -- and pay less to use them. "Depending on your credit history, a 15- or 20-point shift could mean the difference between being approved or declined or better terms or higher costs," said Rod Griffin, the director of public education at Experian, a major credit-reporting firm. As a result of Deloitte's failure to adequately safeguard Plaintiff's PII, Plaintiff was injured. Additionally, Plaintiff has been placed at imminent risk of additional fraudulent transactions and other concrete, tangible harm. Deloitte Consulting LLP is a consulting firm based in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LLP 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6487 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com kjustice@fklmlaw.com DUKE UNIVERSITY: Talab Demands Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure ---------------------------------------------------------------- YAHYA TALAB, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DUKE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00480-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C., May 29, 2020), seeks compensation for Duke students and/or their parents or guardians, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic semester and who did not receive their bargained-for educational and other services and have not been refunded a prorated portion of their tuition and fees after Duke ceased providing such services to students during the Spring 2020 academic semester due to the COVID-19 crisis. In response to COVID-19, on March 10, 2020, Duke President Vincent E. Price announced that all on-campus classes were being suspended until further notice and transitioned to remote instruction for all undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools. Undergraduate Spring Break was extended from March 15th to March 22nd, and all students, who were off campus for Spring Break were advised to not return to campus if at all possible, and those students who needed to return to campus were required to register with Student Affairs so Duke could control the on-campus population. President Price advised that residential students would receive a prorated reimbursement of unused housing and dining fees but provided no guidance or offers to reimburse any portion of students' tuition or fees. Further compounding students' frustration is the fact that Duke was eligible for, but declined to accept, $6.7 million in government funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Act, half of which is federally mandated to go toward students who are in need of emergency financial assistance, says the complaint. Despite the provision of an entirely remote college experience, the Defendant refuses to refund or reimburse the Plaintiff and similarly situated Duke students and their parents or guardians the fees they paid for services they are not being provided, events they cannot attend, and programs and activities that have been curtailed, discontinued, or closed, the Plaintiff contends. Duke is one of the nation's premier private universities. Duke currently enrolls nearly 6,700 undergraduate and approximately 9,000 graduate students, and, altogether, serves a total of more than 16,600 students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nestico, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTRELL KONECKY LLP 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (510) 740-3946 E-mail: jnestico@schneiderwallace.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net emdrake@bm.net ELANCO ANIMAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the publicly-traded Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN). Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN) Class Period: January 10, 2020 - May 6, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020 The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Elanco made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Elanco failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, the Company increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (2) that Elanco's distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the inventory; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect to companion animal products; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Contact: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz Tel: (310) 914-5007 E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/ [GN] ELANCO ANIMAL: Rosen Reminds Bondholders of July 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Elanco Animal Health Incorporated (NYSE: ELAN) between January 10, 2020 and May 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important July 20, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Elanco investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Elanco class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1859.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS 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: (1) after consolidating its distributors from eight to four, Elanco increased the amount of inventory, including companion animal products, held by each distributor; (2) Elanco's distributors were not experiencing sufficient demand to sell through the inventory; (3) Elanco's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Elanco would reduce its channel inventory with respect to companion animal products; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Elanco's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 20, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1859.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. 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. Contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ [GN] EQUIFAX INC: $5.5MM Data Breach Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that a Georgia federal judge has given preliminary approval to a settlement in which Equifax Inc. agreed to pay $5.5 million to financial institutions that sued the credit rating agency after a data breach exposed personal information of 147 million Americans. CUNA sued Equifax in October 2017 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. "Credit unions have borne substantial costs as a result of this massive data breach, and the settlement offers recourse on the path toward making affected credit unions whole again," Jim Nussle, CUNA's president and CEO, said in a statement about the settlement. "Breaches like this are occurring on a regular basis, and the only thing that will prevent them in the future is a strong national data security standard that holds all entities accountable." Nussle continued: "CUNA and the Leagues look forward to continuing our engagement with Congress to enact robust data security requirements for all who handle consumers' personal information." In a court filing, lawyers for the plaintiffs said the settlement "resulted from good faith, arm's-length settlement negotiations, including multiple settlement conferences, both in-person and telephonically among counsel for the parties." The settlement with the financial institutions, including credit unions as named plaintiffs, is separate from a related consumer class action. The proposed financial institution class includes thousands of financial institutions, court records stated. The named financial institution plaintiffs are: Army Aviation Center Federal Credit Union, ASI Federal Credit Union, Bank of Louisiana, Consumers Cooperative Credit Union, Elements Financial Federal Credit Union, Firefly Credit Union, First Financial Credit Union, Halliburton Employees' Federal Credit Union, Heritage Federal Credit Union, Hudson River Community Credit Union, Peach State Federal Credit Union, SeaComm Federal Credit Union, Services Credit Union, Seven Seventeen Credit Union, Sky Federal Credit Union, State Employees Federal Credit Union, Summit Credit Union, Suncoast Credit Union, The Summit Federal Credit Union, Washington Gas Light Federal Credit Union and Wright-Patt Credit Union. Eligible financial institutions that submit valid claims will be entitled to $4.50 per "alerted on" debit and credit cards. These are cards whose numbers were exposed in the 2017 data breach. Victim institutions with valid claims also will be entitled to an additional $5,000 for certain out-of-pocket losses. The settlement establishes a 180-day claim period. For its part, Equifax, represented by lawyers at the firm King & Spalding, agreed "to adopt and/or maintain security measures to protect the sensitive data it collects," the plaintiffs lawyers said in their settlement papers. Equifax has agreed to pay the lawyers for the class up to $2 million in legal fees and up to $250,000 in litigation costs and expenses. A final settlement approval hearing is set for Oct. 22. [GN] EVENTBRITE INC: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Refund Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters report that a class action was filed against Eventbrite Inc. in the U.S. district court in California. The complaint challenges aspects of ticket refund policies and procedures from Q1 after the coronavirus outbreak. The company disputes the merits of claims and intends to defend against them. [GN] EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT: Vazquez Sues Over Unpaid OT & Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ERY VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-cv-01019 (M.D. Fla., June 11, 2020) challenges Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 17, 2019 until January 15, 2020 as General/Commercial Cleaner, whose duties include cleaning windows at commercial establishments. Plaintiff claims that he and his fellow General/Commercial Cleaners routinely worked over 45 hours or more in a work week, including an "off the clock" work as required by Defendant. But, Defendant failed to pay them overtime wages based on their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 within a work week. Moreover, Plaintiff repeatedly complained to his Supervisor and Defendant's General Manager concerning his and fellow cleaners' unpaid overtime but his concerns were ignored and, consequently, he was terminated on January 15, 2020. Executive Management Services, Inc. is a commercial cleaning and facility services company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. George G. Triantis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin St., Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 813-223-5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 Emails: MEdelman@forthepeople.com GTriantis@forthepeople.com FAULT LINE: Faces Vargas Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN VARGAS, on behalf of similarly situated members of the general public v. FAULT LINE LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20408 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., May 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay all wages (including minimum wages and overtime wages); failed to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu; and failed to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof in violation of the Labor Code. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and other persons as misclassified independent contractors at the Defendants' California business locations. The Defendants provide courier and delivery services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Fawn F. Bekam, Esq. Clare M. Wernet, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com cwemet@aegislawfirm.com FD THOMAS: Sykes Labor Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as DEVONNEA SYKES, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. F.D. THOMAS, INC., an Oregon corporation; ASRC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, an Alaska Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584144 (Filed April 14, 2020), was removed from the from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 1, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. CGC-20-584144 to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. FD Thomas, Inc., provides coatings and specialty contracting services. The Company offers carbon fiber, ceramic insulation, chemical resistance coating, floor toppings, secondary containment, tank interiors and exterior, traffic toppings, and waterproofing services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory G. Iskander, Esq. Chad D. Greeson, 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: giskander@littler.com cgreeson@littler.com FIRST-CITIZENS BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agents, Ratliff Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated businesses and individuals v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02041-BHH (D.S.C., May 29, 2020), seeks to recover from First-Citizens unpaid compensation for loan agents. On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's PPP which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses. After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program. The PPP was designed to be a fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Ratliff provides corporate and individual taxation advice to its clients and performs financial planning and consulting for both businesses and individuals in the local community. Ratliff meets the criteria to be a PPP Agent under the CARES Act. The Plaintiff alleges that First-Citizens refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which requires it to pay out of the compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans, for services the Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. The Plaintiff contends that First-Citizens has refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. The Plaintiff asserts that this practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though First-Citizens was required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, it did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing applications. First-Citizens is one of the largest banks in the country, with over 500 individual branches spanning from the State of Washington to the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Harpootlian, Esq. RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN, P.A. 1410 Laurel Street (29201) Post Office Box 1090 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 252-4848 Facsimile: (803) 252-4810 E-mail: rah@harpootlianlaw.com - and - Mark C. Tanenbaumm Esq. MARK C. TANENBAUM, P.A. 1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Suite 101 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (803) 577-5100 Facsimile: 843-722-4688 E-mail: mark@tanenbaumlaw.com - and - Vincent A. Sheheen, Esq. Michael D. Wright, Esq. SAVAGE, ROYALL & SHEHEEN, L.L.P. P.O. Drawer 10 Camden, SC 29021 Telephone: (803) 432-4391 Facsimile: (803) 425-4812 E-mail: mwright@thesavagefirm.com - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Mustang Gearbox Problems ------------------------------------------------------------ Caleb Jacobs, writing for The Drive, reports that just months after Ford agreed to pay millions to Focus and Fiesta owners over their faulty PowerShift transmissions, it's again facing a class-action lawsuit -- this time for the Mustang's six-speed manual. Drivers of 2011-2020 Mustang and Mustang GT models have long made their problems with the Getrag MT82 gearbox known, and now, they've taken legal action. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs claim the equipment to be failure-prone and blame Ford for not remedying the situation, despite knowing of the complaints for nearly a decade. The Mustang's MT82 and MT82-D4 gearboxes are alleged to suffer inherent defects that lead to slipping, jerking, and clashing of gears. What's more, the plaintiffs of Gregoria vs. Ford Motor Company say these hiccups persist even after being repaired, citing a poor design that causes shift forks, shift shafts, synchronizers, and clutch assemblies to fail. Essentially, they're saying it's only a matter of time before these parts need replacing over and over. The lawsuit mentions that Ford acknowledged said issues internally by issuing special service bulletins to dealerships. These bulletins instructed technicians to drain and refill the transmissions, along with replacing a list of parts including shift forks, synchronizer hubs and sleeves, clutch pedal position switches and the gearshift lever, among other items. In 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted an investigation into the Mustang's manual gearbox. According to provided documents, the NHTSA received 364 complaints regarding the Getrag unit, though it ultimately found no safety risks. Ford also took action to correct the problems reported to the agency, though it found these faults affected only three percent of all transmissions. The Drive's Mike Spinelli reported on this several years ago at Jalopnik, explaining that Ford blamed "abusive" Mustang owners for such issues. Apparently, most of them occurred when temperatures were cold, and the cars hadn't been properly warmed up. Ford itself says these problems can be attributed to simple wear and tear, denying any actual defect with the transmissions. [GN] FRANCIS GENERAL: Underpays Laborers, Garcia Claims -------------------------------------------------- JOSE ANTONIO LLUILEMA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - FRANCIS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC. (D/B/A FRANCIS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC.), FRANCISCO PERALTA, ANTONIA PICHISACA, and ALEX PERALTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-04323 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. According to the complaint, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer at Francis General Construction Inc. from approximately 2007 until on or about September 21, 2019. Francis General Construction Inc. is a Jamaica, New York-based construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 FRENCH QUARTER: Land Seeks Proper Wages for Exotic Dancers ---------------------------------------------------------- TIERRA LAND, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals, PLAINTIFFS, vs. FRENCH QUARTER PARTNERS, LLC, and DALE "DUKE" KLOSS, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:20-cv-00718-BSM (E.D. Ark., June 5, 2020) alleges that Defendants unlawfully deducted and assigned wages, tips, and gratuities belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the class and collective and failed to pay Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective minimum wage compensation in direct violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The class and collective is composed of female employees who, during the relevant time period of May 2017 through the date of judgment in this case, worked as exotic dancers for Defendants at the Club in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and were denied their fundamental rights under applicable state and federal laws. Plaintiff also complains that Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and all other members of the class and collective as "independent contractors." French Quarter Partners, LLC is a limited liability company, formed under the laws of Arkansas that operates as The French Quarter, a strip club operating in Hot Springs, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Coulter, Esq. MCMATH WOODS P.A. 711 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 396-5400 E-mail: John@McMathLaw.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com FRONTIER AIRLINES: Refuses to Refund Tickets, Rivera-de Leon Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NELCY ALEXA RIVERA-DE LEON, PIOTR TCHORZEWSKI, and STEPHANIE MUTERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01518-NRN (D. Colo., May 28, 2020), alleges that Frontier has engaged in a scheme to evade its obligation to refund to its customers monies paid for flights they will never take, but which they may sorely need in order to provide for themselves and their families during COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, Frontier is aware that federal law and its own Conditions of Carriage, which Frontier incorporates by reference into every ticket it sells, require Frontier to issue customers refunds for flights canceled due to COVID-19. The Plaintiffs contend that Frontier sought to deceive its loyal customers into allowing Frontier to avoid its refund obligations while providing only illusory credits likely to expire before the Plaintiffs and the Class can use them. The Plaintiffs purchased four tickets to fly round-trip on Frontier between Tampa, Florida, and San Juan, Puerto Rico, on March 13, 2020, and March 20, 2020, respectively. Frontier is an American ultra low-cost carrier headquartered in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kathryn J. Stimson, Esq. Jamie Hubbard, Esq. STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD, LLC 1652 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Telephone: 720.689.8909 E-mail: stimson@sslhlaw.com hubbard@sslhlaw.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 782-4880 Facsimile: 318 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com ctourek@caffertyclobes.com bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0580 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com GERMBLOC INC: Lagorio Calls Hand Sanitizer Ads "Deceptive" ---------------------------------------------------------- PETER A. LAGORIO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GERMBLOC, INC. and WILLSPEED TECHNOLOGY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-11074-RGS (D. Mass., June 5, 2020) alleges that the Defendants' representation of its topical antiseptic hand sanitizer product, bearing the brand name "germbloc," is harmful, false, misleading and deceptive to consumers because it gives the misleading impression that using the product will prevent the diseases and all other human illnesses, including SARS Covid-2, the illness caused by the COVID-19 virus. According to the complaint, Defendants have consistently promoted, marketed and advertised the alcohol-free product on websites and elsewhere as killing "99.99% of germs." Despite the Product label representation and the Website representation under the caption "Description" and the WillSpeed Website representation concerning the killing of 99.99% of germs, there are no reliable studies that support the Representations. The Center for Disease Control has stated that non-alcohol-based hand sanitizers are much less effective than alcohol-based products. Specifically, the CDC stated the following in comparing non-alcohol based to alcohol based hand sanitizing products: "Hand sanitizers without 60-95% alcohol 1) may not work equally well for many types of germs; and 2) merely reduce the growth of germs rather than kill them outright." Each Representation has allowed and continues to allow Defendants to unlawfully increase their sales of the Product and gives Defendants a competitive edge over many other products in the marketplace including, by example, products that expressly state that the product is effective in reducing and/or killing only a limited number and/or type of germs. As a result of Defendants' false and deceptive claims, consumers and other purchasers of the Product -- including Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed Classes -- have purchased a product that has not been proven to perform as advertised. This action seeks to obtain redress for purchasers the Product, and to enjoin Defendants' deceptive and unlawful advertising as well as to obtain other equitable relief and injunctive relief. WillSpeed Technology LLC is a medical equipment and supplies manufacturer based in Nampa, Idaho. GermBloc Inc. is wholly owned by WillSpeed Technology LLC and is a corporation having its principal place of business in Nampa, Idaho.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward L. Manchur, Esq. P.O. Box 3156 Peabody, MA 01960 Telephone: (978) 333-1013 E-mail: manchurlaw@gmail.com GPB CAPITAL: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Deceptive Sale of Automobiles ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. GPB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC; AUTOMILE HOLDINGS LLC D/B/A PRIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP; DAVID GENTILE; DAVID ROSENBERG; PHILIP DELZOTTA; JOSEPH DELZOTTA; and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 604918/2020 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., May 28, 2020), seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendants with respect to the marketing, sale, and/or leasing of automobiles and the financial and credit products related to it throughout the state of New York. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have orchestrated several deceptive and discriminatory consumer practices that target and manipulate their customers, including minorities and protected buyers, purchasers, or leasers of automobiles at the Defendants' locations in New York State. The Defendants also engaged in at least eight deceptive schemes aimed at profiting from customers through omitting material information or misrepresenting the nature of the transactions to customers when those customers purchased, leased, or sold automobiles and financial products related to the same from the Defendants, says the complaint. Ms. Ortiz was a citizen of Nassau County and leased an automobile from the Defendants' Garden City Nissan location in Nassau County during May 2018. The Defendants jointly operate, own, and manage the dealership commonly known as Garden City. Each Defendant exercises considerable control over the business decisions and financial transactions that occurred between the corporate entities and the customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516)873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com GRAND CANYON: Lieff Cabraser Notes of July 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Grand Canyon Education, Inc. ("Grand Canyon" or the "Company") (LOPE) between January 5, 2018 and January 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Grand Canyon during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than July 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Grand Canyon investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Grand Canyon Securities Class Litigation Grand Canyon, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, is an education services company. The action alleges that Grand Canyon made misrepresentations and omissions concerning the spin-off of the Company's education assets into Grand Canyon University ("GCU"). Defendants allegedly inflated the Company's financial results by treating GCU as an off-balance sheet entity into which Grand Canyon stuffed with its own expenses and costs to increase Grand Canyon's reported profits. The Company repeatedly misled investors by characterizing GCU as a proper "non-profit" and "independent" institution and misrepresenting Grand Canyon's role as a third-party provider of education services to GCU. On September 9, 2019, Citron Research published a report examining Grand Canyon's financials and finding that the Company "is stuffing GCU with expenses to inflate its own profitability and as a result bankrupting GCU." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock fell $4.85 per share, or 4.2%, from its closing price of $114.47 on September 9, 2019 to close at $109.62 the next day. On November 6, 2019, after market close, Grand Canyon disclosed that it had received a letter from the U.S. Department of Education ("DOE") denying the Company's application to designate GCU as a non-profit entity. DOE's denial was based on its findings that GCU was Grand Canyon's "captive client" and GCU "is not the entity actually operating [GCU]." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock declined $3.80 per share, or 4.13%, from its closing price of $91.88 on November 6, 2019, to close at $88.08 on November 7, 2019. On January 28, 2020, Citron Research released a second report containing additional details about the DOE's findings and referenced hundreds of pages of documentation GCE had submitted to DOE that Citron obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report called Grand Canyon the "educational Enron," and concluded that Grand Canyon used a "captive non-reporting subsidiary" in order to "dump expenses and liabilities, while receiving a disproportionate amount of revenue at inflated margins in order to artificially inflate the stock price." On this news, the price of Grand Canyon stock fell $7.43 per share, or 8.12%, from its closing price of $91.50 on January 27, 2020, to close at $84.07 on January 28, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/ [GN] GW UNIVERSITY: Refuses to Refund Tuition and Fees, Mauldin Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARGARET MAULDIN and CHARAFEDDINE ZAITOUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01417-RJL (D.D.C., May 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of GW University students and/or their parents or guardians, who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 academic and later terms and who did not receive their bargained for educational and other services and have not been refunded a prorated portion of their tuition and fees after GW ceased providing such services to students during the Spring 2020 academic semester due to Coronavirus Disease 2019. In response to COVID-19, on March 10, 2020, GW President Thomas J. LeBlanc announced that following Spring Break, all on-campus classes were being shifted online until April 5, 2020. LeBlanc also announced that all student organization activities and events were suspended. The Plaintiffs contend that despite the provision of an entirely remote college and graduate studies experience, the Defendant refuses to refund or reimburse them and similarly situated GW students and their parents or guardians the fees they paid for services they are not being provided, events they cannot attend, and programs and activities that have been curtailed, discontinued, or closed. The Plaintiffs further say that the Defendant also refuses to refund or reimburse them and the Class for tuition paid for online classes that the Defendant is currently providing to them that are substantially less valuable than the in-person classes that the Defendant had advertised and promised. Plaintiff Margaret Mauldin is a graduate student currently in her first year at GW and is expected to receive her Master's degree in Museum Studies in May 2021. Charafeddine Zaitoun is an undergraduate student in his fourth year at GW and is expected to receive his Bachelor's degree in Real Estate in August 2020. GW is a private university. GW currently enrolls more than 12,500 undergraduate and more than 15,600 graduate students, and, altogether, serves a total of more than 28,100 students. As of 2019, GW had a $1.8 billion endowment, and was recently recognized as one of the 60 richest universities in the country. The Board of Trustees, located at 825 21st Street, NW, in Washington, D.C., is the governing body of GW, providing oversight of and having fiduciary responsibility for GW's academic, fiscal, and physical operations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9745 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net emdrake@bm.net HAMILTON BEACH: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB). Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company (NYSE: HBB) Class Period: February 27, 2020 - May 8, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 21, 2020 The complaint alleges that Hamilton made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Hamilton had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, particularly with respect to one of its Mexican subsidiaries; (2) consequently, Hamilton's accounting included certain irregularities with respect to the timing of recognition of selling and marketing expenses and the classification of certain expenditures within the statement of operations at this Mexican subsidiary, as well as potential misconduct with respect to the realizability of certain assets of the Mexican subsidiary; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, Hamilton could not accurately attest to its financial results, particularly with respect to these metrics, and was consequently at an increased risk of delaying the filing of its period reports with the SEC; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Follow the firm for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW. To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz Tel: (310) 914-5007 E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/ If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., announces an investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of Honeywell International Inc.'s officers and/or directors. On May 18, 2020, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a proposed class action alleging that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Honeywell's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Honeywell's Bendix asbestos-related liability was greater than initially reported; (ii) the Company maintained improper accounting practices in connection with its Bendix asbestos-related liability; and (iii) as a result, Honeywell's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are an investor, and would like additional information about the investigation, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. Tel: 516-493-9780 Fax: 516-280-7376 E-mail: info@jlclasslaw.com [GN] HYATT CORP: Hartstein Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN HARTSTEIN, in her representative capacity and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15895 (Filed April 23, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 1, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-04874 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay all wages upon discharge or layoff, and failed to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements, as required by the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. Hyatt is an American multinational hospitality company headquartered in the Riverside Plaza area of Chicago that manages and franchises luxury and business hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN] Defendant Hyatt Corporation is represented by: Brian Long, Esq. Michael Afar, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: mafar@seyfarth.com bplong@seyfarth.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., announces investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of Immunomedics, Inc. (IMMU)'s officers and/or directors. On June 1, 2020, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 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) the abstract for IMMU-132 that Immunomedics submitted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") for presentation at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting contained previously disclosed results from a mid-stage study; (ii) Immunomedics had misrepresented to ASCO that its abstract for IMMU-132 contained only updated and previously undisclosed data; (iii) the foregoing misrepresentation was a violation of ASCO policy and made Immunomedics' IMMU-132 presentation subject to removal from the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting schedule; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Immunomedics' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are an investor, and would like additional information about the investigation, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. Tel: 516-493-9780 Fax: 516-280-7376 E-mail: info@jlclasslaw.com [GN] IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., announces investigation into possible breaches of fiduciary duty by certain of Immunomedics, Inc. (IMMU)'s officers and/or directors. On June 1, 2020, the U.S. District Court of New Jersey issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. 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) the abstract for IMMU-132 that Immunomedics submitted to the American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") for presentation at the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting contained previously disclosed results from a mid-stage study; (ii) Immunomedics had misrepresented to ASCO that its abstract for IMMU-132 contained only updated and previously undisclosed data; (iii) the foregoing misrepresentation was a violation of ASCO policy and made Immunomedics' IMMU-132 presentation subject to removal from the 2016 ASCO Annual Meeting schedule; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Immunomedics' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are an investor, and would like additional information about the investigation, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. Tel: 516-493-9780 Fax: 516-280-7376 E-mail: info@jlclasslaw.com [GN] INVACOR SOLUTIONS: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Kelley Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- WESLEY KELLEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INVACOR SOLUTIONS, LLC and INVACOR PIPELINE AND PROCESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02013 (S.D. Tex., June 8, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged failure to pay proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly rate Field Technicians. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other Field Technicians were classified by Defendant as hourly rate employees and were paid different hourly rates depending on the type of work being performed. Allegedly, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other Field Technicians overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week because Defendants did not use weighted average of their field technicians' regular rate when calculating overtime rate. Invacor Solutions, LLC and Invacor Pipeline and Process Solutions, LLC provide integrity solutions to the pipeline industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Quinn Seeks to Recover Fees for PPP Loan Agents --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES QUINN d/b/a Q FINANCIAL SERVICES; FAHMIA, INC.; and PRINZO & ASSOCIATES, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., d/b/a CHASE BANK; and JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-04100 (S.D.N.Y., May 28, 2020), seeks compensation from the Defendants, who refuse to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires the Plaintiffs to pay out of the compensation they received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans, for services the Plaintiffs and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. According to the complaint, the Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to complete the final step of the process and based on information and belief have refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications. This practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, the Defendants did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers utilized an agent in completing applications. The Plaintiffs contend that the refusal is harming accountants, attorneys, and other agents, who dropped everything (in the midst of tax season), to assist their customers in filling out these vital loan applications correctly and in compliance with the PPP, and who were specifically only allowed to be paid for these services out of the compensation paid to the lender. The Plaintiffs are certified public accounting firms. JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elaine S. Kusel, Esq. Michele M. Vercoski, Esq. Richard D. McCune, Esq. Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: esk@mccunewright.com mmv@mccunewright.com rdm@mccunewright.com tqn@mccunewright.com KELLY SERVICES: Faces Larry Suit Over Unpaid OT for Recruiters -------------------------------------------------------------- ALIAH LARRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-11481-BAF-EAS (N.D. Ga., June 5, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly situated workers as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA. Larry worked for the Defendant as a Recruiter from approximately October 2013 through June 2019. Kelly Services, Inc. is an American office staffing company that operates globally. The company places employees at all levels in various sectors including financial services, information technology, and law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Radford, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 271-0302 E-mail: james@decaturlegal.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com L'OREAL USA: Clarisonic Face Brush Not Waterproof, Marroquin Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE MARROQUIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00790-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., June 5, 2020) is a class action against Defendant for the manufacture and sale of its Clarisonic face brushes, all of which suffer from an identical defect in design. In widespread advertising and marketing, the Defendant touts that its Clarisonic face brushes are waterproof. In numerous places, including the packaging of the Clarisonics, Defendant represents that the Clarisonics are waterproof and can be used in the "shower, bath, or sink." According to the complaint, the Clarisonics are not waterproof, which causes the Clarisonics to suffer from a battery defect. This defect renders the Clarisonics unusable because the defect renders them nonfunctional. Numerous consumers have reported that their Clarisonics would no longer charge, or turn on at all. Plaintiff and consumers like her have all experienced the same defect – battery failure – after using the Clarisonics to wash their face according to the directions on the package. However, despite numerous complaints, Defendant has not publicly acknowledged the defect or attempted to fix it. Instead, when consumers take advantage of the Clarisonics' warranty, Clarisonic sends replacement Clarisonics that suffer from the same defect. Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of the Clarisonics for (1) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, (5) breach of implied warranty, (6) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and (7) breach of express warranty. L'Oreal USA is a New York-based company that markets a wide assortment of beauty products throughout North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Blair E. Reed, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com breed@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com LINEAGE CELL: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Ross Suit Set for June 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a hearing on the motions to dismiss Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822, is scheduled for June 23, 2020. On March 8, 2019, the company acquired Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. via merger (the "Asterias Merger"). In the acquisition, each outstanding share of Asterias common stock was converted into 0.71 Lineage common shares. On October 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed challenging the Asterias Merger. This action (captioned Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822) was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and names Lineage, the Asterias board of directors, one member of Lineage's board of directors, and certain stockholders of both Lineage and Asterias as defendants. The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under Delaware law. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the Asterias Merger consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by Asterias with the Commission omitted certain material information, which allegedly rendered the information disclosed materially misleading. The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified, the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an opposition. Defendants filed their replies on March 13, 2020. A hearing on the motions to dismiss is scheduled for June 23, 2020. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs. The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. LOUISIANA: Suit v. DOT Over Design That Caused 2016 Floods Proceeds ------------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Kennedy, writing for the Advocate, reports that a lawsuit that claims negligence by Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development and its contractors caused an Interstate 12 median to worsen flooding in 2016 has enough merit to proceed, a judge has ruled. The plaintiffs -- the cities of Denham Springs and Walker, plus numerous businesses and residents under a class action status -- say the 19-mile solid median built to avoid head-on collisions along I-12 in Livingston Parish acted as a dam, keeping water pooled around homes and businesses. In a recent ruling, 19th Judicial District Court Judge Richard "Chip" Moore III said the defendants -- including Gilchrist Construction Co., LLC, a Denham Springs-based contractor that worked on the barrier -- should have known the solid concrete design could cause flooding issues. "Gilchrist's decision to silently follow plans that it knew or should have known were flawed in design because of ineptitude, ignorance and/or error should never be a shield to protect one from liability," the opinion reads, in part. The defendants had argued that the 2016 flood was unprecedented and not the kind of storm that could be comprehended when designing a structure like the median. They argued they had no duty to design a project that could withstand a 1,000-year flood, but the judge disagreed. [GN] MANPOWER US: Jackson Suit Over BIPA Violation Moved to N.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as AARON L. JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. MANPOWER US INC., a Delaware corporation; MANPOWERGROUP INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 2020-CH-03703 (Filed April 3, 2020), was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 28, 2020. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-03143 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his rights and the rights of the Class under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to inform him and the Class in writing that their biometrics were being collected and stored, prior to such collection or storage. Manpower US provides workforce solutions to companies worldwide, and serves both large and small organizations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. Andrew T. Heldut, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: tkingsbury@mcgpc.com aheldut@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Patricia J. Martin, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314-659-2000 E-mail: pmartin@littler.com - and - Kwabena Appenteng, Esq. Orly Henry, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL Telephone: 312 372 5520 E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com ohenry@littler.com MARIANI PACKING: Faces Jefferson Employment Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mariani Packing Co. Inc. The case is captioned as Kelvin Jefferson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mariani Packing Co. Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2020-00279703-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., May 28, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of employment-related laws. Mariani Packing provides food products. The Company specializes in growing, drying, processing, and packaging dried fruit snacks and ingredient products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Rocha Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN ROCHA, as an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees v. MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA; MCDONALD'S USA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20CECG01570 (Cal. Super., May 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay all overtime wages and minimum wages, and failed to provide meal and rest periods in violations of the Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from May 2018 until August 2019. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee in the Defendants' restaurants as a Crew Member and Lead Crew Member. McDonald's Restaurants own and operate a chain of restaurants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq. Sweeney LAW FIRM APC 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500 Sherman Oaks, CA 94103 Telephone: (323) 486-2508 Facsimile: (747) 998-1201 E-mail: bsweene@hesweeneylawfirm.com MDL 2952: Eight Suits Over PPP Loans Transferred to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Eight lawsuits are being transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas for consolidation in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Bank of America Paycheck Protection Program, MDL No. 2952. The member cases are: -- Law Office of Sabrina Damask, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-03591 (CAD. Cal.); -- American Video Duplicating Inc., et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-CV-03815 (C.D. Cal.); -- Studio 1220, Inc. v. Bank of American, National Association, et al., Case No. 3:20-CV-03081 (N.D. Cal.); -- Informative Consulting, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:20-CV-02892 (N.D. Cal.); -- Valiant CPA Group, LLC v. Bank of America, Corp., et al., Case No. 1:20-CV-02026 (N.D. Ga.); -- AD. Sims, LLC v. Win trust Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-CV-02644 (N.D. Ill.); -- E-Dealer Direct, LLC, et al., v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00139 (W.D. Tex.); and -- Panda Group PC v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00045 (D. Utah). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not comply with the Small Business Administration or Treasury Regulations in distributing Paycheck Protection Program funds. Instead, the Defendants either retained all of the Agent Fees or stated that they would only pay to the Agent 50% of the required fees. As a result of the conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs suffered financial harm.[BN] MICHIGAN: Agencies File Suit v. Boyce Hydro Amid Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Walker, writing for The Center Square, reports that the Michigan Office of the Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, is suing Boyce Hydro for the failure of dams in Gladwin and Midland counties on May 19. This latest lawsuit comes on the heels of several class-action lawsuits in which Michigan agencies are named defendants after the Edenville and Sanford dams failed, damaging an estimated 2,500 homes and businesses as well as causing losses between $175 million and $200 million. The lawsuit filed by the Attorney General's Office on June 9 seeks to force Boyce Hydro -- the company that owns four dams in the mid-Michigan area of the Tobacco and Tittabawasee rivers -- into repairing damages to natural resources, clean-up debris and hazardous materials, and paying an undisclosed amount in civil fines and damages. "This suit seeks to hold the dam owners accountable for the damage they caused and recoup the money the taxpayers have spent responding to the ongoing emergency created by this devastating flood," said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. "We know the owners of the dam, with their long history of neglect, are responsible for the dam's failure. We can see already the devastating results of their inaction. This suit seeks an order requiring the dam owners to pay to remediate the harm they caused, and to take action to ensure it does not occur again," Nessel added. In a videoconference call on June 9, Nessel noted the dam failure resulted in swift, universal condemnation of Boyce. She also stated that the state's previous lawsuits against Boyce were subsequent to a Midland County Circuit Court's determination that the company was illegally drawing down water during the winter months. Boyce's claim that the company only raised the water levels to comply with government demands, she said, was "Boyce propaganda." In a statement, Nessel said: "Boyce themselves sought, and received, permission to elevate Wixom Lake to its legally-required summer level this spring," Nessel said. "The State did not demand that the level be raised. Boyce has not pointed to any evidence it ever raised the alarm that the summer level posed a risk, and it never took action to seek a lower summer level with EGLE or the courts. Their after-the-fact attempt to rewrite history in the press is pure fantasy." The state, however, filed a lawsuit on April 30 alleging low water levels during the winters of 2018 and 2019 threatened freshwater mussels. EGLE Director Liesel Clark, DNR Director Dan Eichinger and Nessel also said problems with the Edenville Dam were well known since 1993, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exercised regulatory jurisdiction over the hydroelectric dam. When FERC pulled the dam's license to create hydroelectric energy in September 2018, regulatory authority was transferred to EGLE (then called the Department of Environmental Quality or DEQ). At that time, according to Clark, the DEQ "started from scratch." A DEQ assessment conducted by hydrologist Jim Pawloski, however, concluded the dam was in "fair structural condition" in October 2018. EGLE has since designated Pawloski's study a "preliminary report." In addition to the initial eight-count lawsuit, the AG has promised to file a motion to force Boyce into complying with a state order to fully inspect those portions of the Edenville Dam not fully destroyed on May 19. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Landau Calls Collection Letter "Deceptive" ---------------------------------------------------------- MIREL LANDAU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02634-AMD-SJB (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff has a purported debt that was incurred to Capital One, N.A. According to the complaint, Plaintiff has received a collection letter from Defendant on or about June 12, 2019 concerning the alleged debt. However, the letter contained false, deceptive, and misleading statement. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. Jonathan B. Weiss, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: 929-575-4175 Emails: joseph@cml.legal jonathan@cml.legal MIDLAND FUNDING: Province, Howard Balk at Unlawful Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------------ HELEN PROVINCE, and RONALD HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00110-SLH (W.D. Pa., June 8, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendants for illegally purchasing and continuing to attempt to collect personal loan accounts issued to Plaintiffs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Consumer Discount Company Act. According to the complaint, the Midland Funding has allegedly purchased many personal consumer loans issued to Pennsylvanians across the Commonwealth from non-bank finance companies licensed under the Consumer Discount Company Act. Midland Funding's purchase of the Class Accounts was illegal, unenforceable, and void since the Defendant has never been and is not licensed under the CDCA nor a state or federal financial institution. Midland Funding also did not obtain prior written approval from the Department of Banking to purchase the Class Accounts as an unlicensed non-bank debt collector. The failure to obtain approval is demonstrated by the fact that when Defendants attempted to collect the Class Accounts from Plaintiffs and the class members, Defendants uniformly attempted to collect and receive previously charged or precomputed interest and fees that combined to exceed six percent simple interest per year. Plaintiffs and the class members continue to suffer harm as a result of Defendants' collection activities because Defendants continue to contact Plaintiffs and the class members concerning the Class Accounts, and Defendants continue to report the Class Accounts to various consumer reporting agencies. Midland Funding, LLC is one of the largest owners of unpaid debts in the U.S. Midland Credit Management collects the loans Midland Funding purchases, either directly or indirectly, by calling consumers, sending letters, filing lawsuits against consumers, and reporting information to consumer reporting agencies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC 186 42nd Street P.O. Box 40127 Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: (412) 223-5740 Facsimile: (412) 626-7101 E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com MIKE BLOOMBERG: Underpays Campaign Field Organizers, Sinclair Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, RODNEY SINCLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIKE BLOOMBERG 2020, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-04528 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged intentional, willful, and repeated violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Laws. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as Field Organizer (FO) during Mike Bloomberg's national campaign for the President of the U.S. in the 2020 Presidential Election in Massachusetts between November 24, 2019 and the present. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other FOs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. However, Defendant failed to pay them overtime wages for all of the overtime hours that they worked. The complaint asserts that Defendant misclassified Plaintiff and other FOs as exempt from overtime, failed to keep payroll records, and failed to record all of the time that its employees worked for the benefit of Defendant. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. is an organized committee for Mike Bloomberg's 2020 Presidential campaign. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Michael C. Danna, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212-245-1000 Fax: 646-509-2060 Emails: jms@outtengolden.com mdanna@outtengolden.com - and - Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste. 200W Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: 202-847-4400 Fax: 202-847-4410 Email: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com NAT'L ASSOC OF REALTORS: Faces Rubenstein Antitrust Suit in Conn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARK RUBENSTEIN, JEFFERY NOLAN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS; REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP.; COLDWELL BANKER; SOTHEBY'S INVESTMENT REALTY; HOME SERVICES OF AMERICA INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00742-JAM (D. Conn., May 29, 2020), alleges that the Defendants conspire to require home buyers to pay the broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay at an inflated commission and purchase price, in violation of federal antitrust law. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conspiracy has kept buyer broker commission in the 2.5-3.0% range for many years despite the diminishing role of buyer brokers, which continue to receive the 2.5-3.0% of the sales price due to the Defendants' conspiracy. The Plaintiffs contend that the conspiracy has inflated buyer broker commissions, which, in turn, have inflated the total commissions paid by them and the other class members. They have each incurred, on average, thousands of dollars in damages as a result of the Defendants' conspiracy. Mark Rubenstein purchased a home in Connecticut utilizing a buyer agent. Jeffery Nolan is a resident of Old Lyme, Connecticut. Mark Rubenstein contracted with a Coldwell Banker buyer agent only. Jeffrey Nolan bought a home located in Connecticut. National Association of Realtors has over 1.2 million individual members and is one of the largest lobbying groups in the country, advocating for the interest of real estate brokers. Realogy Holdings is the nation's largest real estate brokerage company. Realogy Holdings is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, HomeServices of America is one of the nation's largest real estate brokerages. HomeServices of America is an affiliate of Berkshire Hathaway. HomeServices of America owns, operates, and franchises many real estate brokerage firms, including HomeServices Prudential Real Estate, Long & Foster, Real Living, and Edina Realty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah Nii-Amaa Ollennu, Esq. ORTHOPAEDIC INJURY LAWYERS, LLC 10 Grand Street, 2nd Floor Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860)200-8839 Facsimile: (860)218-2158 E-mail: jeremiah.ollennu@ctlawprime.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Refuses to Cover COVID-19 Losses, Argenas Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ARGENAS d/b/a TWISTER'S ICE CREAM v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY a/k/a NATIONWIDE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00770-NR (W.D. Pa., May 28, 2020), arises from the Defendant's refusal to cover the Plaintiff's loss due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 19, 2020, Governor Tom Wolf issued an Order requiring all non-life-sustaining businesses in the Commonwealth to cease operations and close all physical locations. The Plaintiff owns and operates an ice cream shop in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief arising from the Plaintiff's contract of insurance with Defendant in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and state and local government orders mandating that all non-essential in-store businesses must shut down. The Plaintiff contends that his and class members' businesses have suffered business loss, and their insurance policies provide coverage for all non-excluded business losses and, thus, provide coverage here. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has accepted the policy premiums with no intention of providing any coverage for business losses or the Civil Authority extension due to a loss and shutdown and property damage. He adds that they are entitled to declaratory relief that their businesses are covered for all business losses that have been incurred in an amount greater than $5,000,000. Nationwide is an insurance carrier that provides business interruption insurance to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold Levin, Esq. Laurence Berman, Esq. Frederick Longer, Esq. Daniel Levin, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com flonger@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 - and - Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq. Rachel N. Boyd, Esq. Paul W. Evans, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 NEW YORK LIFE: Seeks Review of Decision in Chenensky Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants New York Life Insurance Company, New York Life and Annuity Corp. and NYLIFE Securities LLC filed an appeal from the Decision and Order of the Honorable O. Peter Sherwood of the New York Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 28, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Brian Chenensky v. New York Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 653923/2012. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, lead plaintiff Brian Chenensky was an insurance agent for New York Life from May 2003 until September 2006. His complaint in New York County Supreme Court names the defendants as: New York Life Insurance Co., New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corp., NYLife Insurance Co. of Arizona. The action comes five years after Chenensky filed the same claims against the same defendants in Federal Court, only to have U.S. District Judge William Pauley III toss the case for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction this past March. New York Life was quick to highlight the case's history when asked about the new lawsuit. "Plaintiff has been attempting to make out this claim for almost seven years now," New York Life senior vice president William Werfelman said. "Despite his persistence, we remain confident that both the law and the facts strongly support our position that we have paid our agents wholly consistent with the law. We will continue to defend these baseless claims vigorously." Chenensky says New York Life deducted agent wages or required them to pay additional money for overhead costs such as office space, telephone service, computer support and liability insurance. He also says the company illegally reversed commissions for things beyond an agent's control, like when a customer canceled a policy, failed to pay anticipated premiums or withdrew funds. Similar reversals allegedly occurred when New York Life rescinded the product or recalculated commissions. Such deductions are described nowhere in all the employment contracts agents sign, according to the complaint. The appellate case is captioned as BRIAN CHENENSKY, AVRAHAM GOLD and SHEREE N. JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORP., NYLIFE INSURANCE CO. OF ARIZONA, NYLIFE SECURITIES LLC (f/k/a NYLIFE SECURITIES, INC.), Defendants, Case No. 2020-02641, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Judicial Department.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN CHENENSKY, AVRAHAM GOLD and SHEREE N. JOHNSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: John Halebian, Esq. Adam C. Mayes, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2440 New York, NY 10170 Telephone: (212) 500-5010 E-mail: JHalebian@lshllp.com AMayes@lshllp.com Defendants-Appellants NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE CO., NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORP., NYLIFE INSURANCE CO. OF ARIZONA, NYLIFE SECURITIES LLC (f/k/a NYLIFE SECURITIES, INC.) are represented by: Sean P. Lynch, Esq. Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 919-6611 Facsimile: (609) 919-6701 E-mail: sean.lynch@morganlewis.com richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com - and - Michael L. Banks, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5387 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: michael.banks@morganlewis.com OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Faces Sterling Securities Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM and DONALD McGUIRE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, VICKI HOLLUB, CEDRIC W. BURGHER, JENNIFER M. KIRK, SPENCER ABRAHAM, EUGENE L. BATCHELDER, MARGARET M. FORAN, CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ, WILLIAM R. KLESSE, JACK B. MOORE, AVEDICK B. POLADIAN, ELISSE B. WALTER, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC and WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, Case No. 651830/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., May 28, 2020), asserts liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons, who acquired Occidental securities issued in connection with Occidental's August 2019 merger with and acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation asserting strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Occidental, certain current and former officers and directors of Occidental and Anadarko, and the lead underwriters of the offerings. In connection with the Merger, the Defendants conducted three securities offerings. In August 2019, Occidental issued approximately 144 million new shares of Occidental common stock directly to former shareholders of Anadarko in exchange for their Anadarko shares. In addition, Occidental issued approximately $13 billion worth of new senior notes to finance the Merger and approximately $11.5 billion senior notes to former Anadarko note holders in exchange for their Anadarko senior notes. These securities were issued pursuant to three registration statements and prospectuses (Registration Statements) that were drafted and disseminated to investors as part of a series of transactions in furtherance of the Merger. The Registration Statements highlighted Occidental's purported ability to "maximize shareholder returns through a combination" of "consistent dividend growth" and "production growth rates of 5 to 8+ percent." Indeed, the Registration Statements claimed not only that "Occidental was firmly committed to maintaining its current dividend growth," but, moreover, that the Merger was "significantly accretive to Occidental's cash flow and free cash flow, on a per share basis after dividend in 2020 and beyond," and, thus, would "support accelerated dividend growth." The Plaintiffs contend that the dramatic increase in Occidental's debt load, from approximately $10 billion to $40 billion, had left it precariously exposed to any decline in the price of oil while undermining the Company's ability to expend the capital necessary to achieve its purported growth rate, production levels and dividend. They add that the failure to disclose this information rendered the positive affirmations of Occidental's business, finances, and prospects contained in the Registration Statements materially misleading. Occidental's undisclosed plans to severely cut capital spending shortly after the Merger, engage in widespread layoffs, and auction off assets at fire-sale prices, as well as Occidental's consequent inability to maintain its dividend or achieve anywhere near the growth rate and other financial and operational metrics portrayed in the Registration Statements, rendered false and misleading, according to the complaint. By the commencement of this action, Occidental shares were trading below $15 per share, a 68% decline from the approximately $47 per share at which they were trading on the exchange date for the Merger. Similarly, the senior notes issued in connection with the Merger have traded as low as 60% below par. Investors have suffered severe losses as a result, the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs acquired Occidental senior notes issued in connection with the Merger pursuant to the Registration Statements and was damaged, thereby. Occidental Petroleum is an oil and gas company best known for discovering and establishing the Lathrop Gas Field outside of Stockton, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631 367-7100 Facsimile: 631 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: 313 578-1200 Facsimile: 313 578-1201 - and - Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. ROBBINS LLP 5040 Shoreham Place San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: 619 525-3990 Facsimile: 619/525-3991 E-mail: soddo@robbinsllp.com OD INSPECTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper OT to Inspectors, Lu Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- SAM LU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- OD INSPECTIONS, INC. and OSNEL DE LA CRUZ, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-02063 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2020) is a lawsuit seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers – salaried inspectors and inspector helpers – who have worked for Defendants in the United States. In order to avoid paying Inspectors overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, Defendants uniformly misclassified them as exempt from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this regard, Defendants pay Inspectors with a set salary without additional compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Despite having substantial custody and control over Inspectors and being their employer, OD Inspections misclassified them as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime compensation. OD Inspections, Inc. is a leading provider of inspection services to the oil and gas industry and manufacturing industry with headquarters in Humble, Texas and established operations in West Texas and Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 ORACLE INC: Bid for Writ of Mandate or Writ of Prohibition Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael DeMarino, Gerald Maatman, Jr., and Andrew Welker of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, wrote an article on JD Supra on the California Court of Appeal's denial of Oracle's petition for a writ of mandate or a writ of prohibition to reverse class certification order. On April 30, 2020, the California Superior Court granted class certification against Oracle America Inc., allowing former employees to represent a class of over 4,100 women for claims of alleged discrimination in violation of California's Equal Pay Act. Following the Superior Court's class certification decision, Oracle filed a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appel for review of the lower court's ruling. However, on June 2, 2020, the Court of Appeal denied Oracle's petition, allowing the case to move forward as a class action. This case is reminder for employers that even in the wake of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), there is still a potential that employment discrimination claims will be certified, particularly in California. Employers should not underestimate the uphill battle of overturning such a ruling through a writ of mandate, which is highly discretionary and sparingly granted on appellate review. Background And Analysis In Jewett, et al. v. Oracle America Inc., No. 17-02669 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Cty.), former Oracle employees filed a class action suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, alleging that the company underpaid women for doing the same work as their male peers in violation of the California Equal Pay Act. That statute requires workers to be paid the same for "substantially similar work." In support of their bid for class certification, Plaintiffs relied on expert reports by an economist and statistician that used a regression analysis to show that women made roughly $13,000 less annually than men with the same job code. Plaintiffs contended that that this pay disparity arose from Oracle's use of prior salary at jobs before Oracle to set starting salaries for its workers, a practice the California legislature has found perpetuates historical pay discrimination. Plaintiffs also relied on an industrial organizational psychologist's report, which concluded that at Oracle women with the same job codes as men perform the same or substantially similar work. Ultimately, the Superior Court granted class certification and rejected Oracle's contention that the skills, effort, and responsibilities vary within each of Oracle's job codes to such an extent that individualized inquiries are necessary to determine the nature of each person's work. The Superior Court explained that the question was not whether Oracle's job codes categorize jobs on the basis of substantially similar or equal skills, effort, and responsibility, but whether Plaintiffs offered substantial common evidence that they do so. The Superior Court concluded that Plaintiffs' expert evidence did just that. Appeal Prospects Following the trial court's decision, Oracle filed a petition for a writ of mandate or a writ of prohibition seeking to reverse the class certification decision with the Court of Appeal. Such writs are rarely granted remedies by which appeals courts can set aside trial court rulings before the proceedings at the lower court have concluded. Upon review, the Court of Appeal denied Oracle's petition, finding that it did "not persuasively demonstrate that petitioner lacks other adequate remedies at law and that petitioner will suffer irreparable harm absent writ review." See Oracle America Inc. v. Superior Court of San Mateo County, No. A160205 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. June 2, 2020). This outcome is not surprising given the Court of Appeal's traditional reluctance to grant such writs. The denial of Oracle's petition moves the case one step closer to trial. Implication For Employers This ruling in the Oracle case is a reminder of the high hurdles that employers face when appealing a decision granting class certification in California state court. Before litigating class certification issues, employers are well served to explore any potential basis to remove the litigation to federal court. This case is also a reminder of the fundamental role that statistical analysis and expert testimony play at the class certification stage in terms of providing plaintiffs with common evidence. Employers defending against discrimination class action claims would be wise to retain and consult with experts early to develop a plan to defeat class certification and gather the appropriate evidence to do so. [GN] OVERSTOCK.COM: Missouri Tax Issues at Center of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Overstock.com is facing a class action lawsuit in St. Louis, Missouri, that alleges it charges a higher sales tax than is allowed. Kathryn Schott's lawsuit filed March 17, 2020, in St. Louis County Circuit Court says Overstock is exceeding the 4.225% Missouri sales tax when it ships Missouri residents from an out-of-state facility. "Despite clear Missouri law to the contrary, Overstock.com has charged in the past, and on information and belief continues to charge, excess 'tax' on sales of their products through remote sales channels, including Overstock.com’s internet website, to Missouri purchasers that are shipped from an out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery address," the lawsuit says. Overstock.com removed the case to federal court on May 22. Schott is represented by Orlowsky Law and Goffstein Law. [GN] PACE FUNDING: Faces Solar Panel Finance Scheme Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Angela Ruggiero, writing for The Mercury News, reports that a class-action lawsuit alleges that hundreds of Latino homeowners and Spanish speakers were targeted by solar panel companies throughout the state, and defrauded of thousands of dollars. The lawsuit names several solar panel finance and construction companies, including Pace Funding Group, Complete Solar, Garantia Solar and Green Pace Financial, accusing them of misrepresenting facts or concealing information to hundreds, or even thousands, of homeowners who agreed to purchase or lease solar panels for their homes. The lawsuit was filed by the law firm Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, of Burlingame, and Housing and Economic Rights Advocates in Alameda County Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that homeowners were convinced to enter into "PACE," or Property Assessed Clean Energy, agreements. Some of the customers weren't aware that they were signing up for loans, and that their homes could face foreclosure if they defaulted. The solar panel finance companies reached out to homeowners in Spanish over the phone, through texts and emailed, but when the contract and all other legal paperwork was delivered, it was in English. This "bait-and-switch" maneuver caused clients to sign agreements and terms that they were not aware of, the lawsuit alleges. "This kind of fraud cannot stand," said Alison Cordova -- acordova@cpmlegal.com -- an attorney at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, in a statement. "Purposefully targeting non-English speaking communities in order to defraud them is disgraceful. Everyone should have the right to pursue the American dream untarnished." Homeowners were also allegedly led to believe that this energy agreement was a federal program created under the Obama administration, and required all California homeowners to have solar panels by 2020. Some homeowners also thought that in exchange for the cost of installing the solar panels, they would get a discount on their utility bill, the lawsuit said. Customers also were not informed that they were signing up for a loan with interest payments; that their home would be assessed because of the agreement; and that the customers would be charged interest and other fees in addition to the cost of installing the solar panels, according to the lawsuit. It also wasn't made clear that these homeowners would be entering into an agreement that placed a priority lien on their homes. That means if they defaulted on the loans, the solar panel finance companies named in the lawsuit could foreclose on the homeowners' property, the lawsuit maintains. "Inducing consumers to enter a contract that puts their home at risk without their knowledge or consent is illegal," said Eric Buescher -- ebuescher@cpmlegal.com -- of the Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy firm in a statement. "The conduct alleged in the complaint is an evolution of racist housing policies that have hurt too many Californians for too long." The main plaintiff, Gloria Sanchez, is an Oakland homeowner who entered into an agreement for solar panels in 2018. She alleges that some information was given to her orally in Spanish, but when documents were provided, they were in English. Attorney Joe Crotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- of the Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy firm, represented the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation in the decade-long legal battle over public access to Martins Beach in San Mateo County. The solar companies named in the lawsuit did not respond to requests for comment. [GN] PATTERN ENERGY: Faces Brill Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A stockholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Michael M. Garland, et al. The case is captioned as JODY BRITT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL M. GARLAND, ALAN R. BATKIN, JOHN BROWNE, RICHARD A. GOODMAN, DOUGLAS G. HALL, PATRICIA M. NEWSON, MONA K. SUTPHEN, HUNTER H. ARMISTEAD, DANIEL M. ELKORT, MICHAEL L. LYON, ESBEN W. PEDERSEN, PATTERN ENERGY GROUP HOLDINGS 2, LP, RIVERSTONE PATTERN ENERGY II HOLDINGS, LP, and RIVERSTONE HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 2020-0412 (Del. Ch., May 28, 2020). Pattern Energy operates as a renewable energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 PERSONNEL STAFFING: Black Applicants Class Action Not Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- BloombergLaw reports that a federal district court denied certification to a proposed class action by black applicants against Personnel Staffing Group, LLC -- which alleged that they weren't given assignments by the staffing agency, or weren't selected for work at client companies because of racial bias -- on the basis that the named plaintiffs were inadequate class representatives. The two remaining plaintiffs out of five original proposed class representatives were unqualified to act as class representatives, the court said, because they didn't know the basics of the case, including who the defendants were, why many of them were being sued. [GN] PETROPLAN USA: Saba Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- The case, JAMES SABA, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETROPLAN USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-02070 (S.D. Tex., June 12, 2020) challenges Defendant's alleged illegal pay practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Planner from approximately January 2016 until April 2018. According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. But, Defendant paid him the same hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek, thereby failing to pay him overtime at one and one-half times his regular rate. Petroplan USA, LLC is a global recruiter for employees and professionals in the oil, gas, and energy sector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-352-1100 Fax: 713-352-3300 Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com PORTLAND, OR: Protesters Sue City Over Tear Gas ----------------------------------------------- Conrad Wilson, Rob Manning, and Rebecca Ellis, writing for OPB.org, report that protesters have filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Portland for what they're calling "indiscriminate use" of tear gas during nightly protests following the killing of a Black man by police in Minneapolis last month. The suit is filed on behalf of two protesters, Nicholas Roberts and Michelle "Misha" Belden, and the advocacy group Don't Shoot Portland. Police deploy tear gas during demonstrations in downtown Portland, Ore., Saturday, May 30, 2020. The death of George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer sparked nationwide protests against police brutality amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Police deploy tear gas during demonstrations in downtown Portland, Ore., Saturday, May 30, 2020. The death of George Floyd at the hands of a white Minneapolis police officer sparked nationwide protests against police brutality amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Mayor Ted Wheeler's office declined to comment on the lawsuit, but Wheeler himself visited protesters Friday evening and addressed the broader issue of tear gas, speaking through a bullhorn. "I do not like the tear gas, I think it's ugly -- it is not focused enough," Wheeler told the crowd. A protester yelled, "What you going to do about it?" "Seattle, today, banned the use of tear gas for thirty days except limited circumstances, I think we should do the same," Wheeler answered. On Friday in Seattle, Mayor Jenny Durkan and Police Chief Carmen Best agreed to a 30-day ban on tear gas, the Seattle Times reported. Wheeler said there would be a formal announcement of a similar step in Portland on Saturday. Protesters responded yelling, "Tonight!" The civil rights complaint filed in federal court late Friday, seeks a temporary restraining order to force police from using tear gas in the city. In a statement, advocates said they also want a permanent ban on the use of the gas. The protesters argue the use of tear gas violates their First Amendment rights. "We're out screaming for justice for Black people and asking the state to stop its violence against us, and the City responds by using tear gas when we're in the middle of a pandemic of respiratory disease," said Teressa Raiford of Don't Shoot Portland in a statement. Public health officials have warned against the use of tear gas during the COVID-19 pandemic, because it can cause coughing, which can spread the virus. "The use of tear gas is particularly dangerous at the present time because it is specifically designed to irritate the respiratory system and to cause people to expel mucus and aspirated saliva," the lawsuit states. "In the midst of a global pandemic, the deadly novel COVID-19 virus is known to spread principally through aspirated saliva and mucus." Raiford noted that for weeks, the country shut down to slow the spread of the disease. Now, she said, it appears the city no longer cares about the risks as demonstrators confront police violence. "This just demonstrates that they don't care about the harm they're causing, and that they are willing to literally kill us for standing up," Raiford said. The lawsuit states that for more than a week people across the country and around world have turned out to protest police violence and white supremacy in the wake of killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The incident was captured on video and shows one former officer, Derek Chauvin, with his knee on Floyd's neck for nearly 9 minutes as Floyd repeatedly yelled out, "I can't breathe." Chauvin has been charged with second degree murder, while three other police officers, also fired in the wake of Floyd's death, have been charged with aiding and abetting murder. "The Portland Police Bureau, like police departments all over the country, has responded with indiscriminate, unchecked, and unconstitutional violence against protesters," the lawsuit states. "In particular, PPB has repeatedly used chemical agents (‘tear gas') against crowds of protesters, including plaintiffs who had committed no criminal acts, posed no threat of violence to any person, and were merely engaged in protected speech." One of the attorneys bringing the case, Juan Chavez, with the Oregon Justice Resource Center, said across the country and in Portland police have had a militarized response to people's grief and demands for justice. He said the use of tear gas must stop. "It only causes panic, it causes people to run in fear and possibly trip into things, fall into things, hurt themselves in other ways and it spreads, it spreads with wind and hurts people that have nothing to do with protesting," Chavez said in an interview. Earlier this week, two Portland city commissioners asked for a ban on tear gas as well. Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also the police commissioner, has said he would support a ban, if police had a suitable alternative for controlling crowds. On Thursday, Portland Police Association president Daryl Turner, whose union represents rank-and-file officers, told OPB's Think Out Loud that using tear gas -- also known as "CS gas" -- is considered a "best practice" by police when it comes to crowd control. "If they deem that we can't use it, we'll have to use something else, a less lethal option," Turner said. "But what it does is it also causes police to have to use more hands on force because they take one option away that could help disburse crowds, help keep people safe and it has a short time period that it affect people and wears off easily with washing down with water." On Friday night Wheeler tweeted that he was clamping down on a different crowd control tactic that officers used during protests early Friday morning: a sonic cannon known as a Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD. "Effective immediately, I have directed @PortlandPolice to use LRAD only to share information and not as a sonic warning tone function," Wheeler said on Twitter. [GN] PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS: Post Balks at Proposed Sale to Alexion --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH POST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PORTOLA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HOLLINGS C. RENTON, JEFFREY BIRD, LAURA BREGE, DENNIS FENTON, SCOTT GARLAND, JOHN H. JOHNSON, TED LOVE, DAVID C. STUMP, H. WARD WOLFF, ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and ODYSSEY MERGER SUB INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00715-UNA (D. Del., May 28, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Portola will be acquired by Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Odyssey Merger Sub Inc. In May 5, 2020, Portola's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Alexion. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Portola's outstanding common stock for $18.00 in cash per share. The Tender Offer is set to expire on July 1, 2020. On May 27, 2020, the Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. The Plaintiff asserts that the Solicitation Statement fails to disclose, for each set of projections: all line items used to calculate unlevered free cash flow; and a reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. The Plaintiff is, and has been the owner of Portola common stock. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement. Portola is a global, commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel therapeutics that could significantly advance the fields of thrombosis and other hematologic conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com - and - Gina M. Serra, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 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 PRINCESS CRUISE: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------- Chris Woodyard, writing for USA Today, reports that two new lawsuits allege that Princess Cruises didn't take adequate steps to protect passengers on two ships that became the focus of international attention when they were struck by outbreaks of the coronavirus. The lawsuits allege that the cruise line failed to adequately screen for COVID-19 during the boarding process aboard the Grand Princess and Ruby Princess and then didn't act fast enough to impose a quarantine when cases were discovered. "This is part of a bigger picture of how terribly mismanaged the whole coronavirus outbreak was by the entire cruise industry," says Michael Winkleman, the Miami-based attorney whose firm filed both suits in U.S. District Court in California. He says the virus spread "because of failure to act reasonably and promptly." The suits, one of several that have already been filed, seek class-action status for passengers aboard both the Grand Princess and Ruby Princess. In an email to USA TODAY, Princess Cruises said it wouldn't comment on pending litigation, but that it has been "sensitive to the difficulties the COVID-19 outbreak has caused to our guests and crew." The cruise line added that "our response throughout this process has focused on the well-being of our guests and crew within the parameters dictated to us by the government agencies involved and the evolving medical understanding of this new illness." The Grand Princess lawsuit states that a passenger started showing symptoms of the coronavirus eight days after the ship departed for Mexico on Feb. 11. Despite the likelihood that the passenger had the virus when boarding, proper screening procedures had not been in place, the suit alleges. Then, it says, new passengers were allowed to board the Grand Princess within hours after its arrival in San Francisco on Feb. 21 before the ship had been adequately cleaned. The ship sailed to Hawaii, but on the way back passengers were quarantined after a passenger from the previous cruise to Mexico tested positive for the coronavirus. Even when the ship was allowed to dock in Oakland, California on March 9, social distancing of disembarking passengers wasn't ordered, the suit says. As for the Ruby Princess, that suit says the ship left Sydney, Australia, on a cruise on Feb. 24 even though it was aware of at least one passenger showing symptoms for the coronavirus. On the voyage, 158 passengers became sick, including 13 with a high temperature, a COVID-19 symptom. As with the Grand Princess, the suit alleges the cruise line let new passengers board the Ruby Princess on March 8 in Sydney before the crew could adequately sanitize the vessel. By then, with the coronavirus having become international news, passengers who expressed concern were told the ship was safe and that the company would not reimburse them if they tried to cancel their trip. The new passengers were not screened for the virus, the suit says. The first suspected case of COVID-19 -- a passenger who had been on the prior voyage -- was discovered March 13. Five other passengers showed symptoms the following day. Eventually, 128 passengers and crew were believed to have the virus, but other passengers on the ship were not told of their risk of exposure, according to the suit. "Princess Cruises' negligent misconduct was predicated on a profit motive," the suit states. "The voyage set sail knowing it was a virtual certainty that there would be an outbreak." Like all cruise lines, Princess has suspended operations due to the pandemic. It said it will be extending the suspension into October because of ports of call around the world that remain closed. [GN] PRINCESS CRUISE: Fails to Disclose COVID-19 Risks, Eicher Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY EICHER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRINCESS CRUISE LINES, LTD., Defendant, Case 2:20-cv-04958-ODW-PLA (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2020) alleges that the Defendant endangered the lives of the Plaintiff and the Class by failing to disclose the coronavirus situation during the 16-day cruise voyage. According to the complaint, the Defendant grossly neglected the safety of its passenger when the Defendant proceed with a 16-day cruise on February 21, 2020, knowing at least one of its passengers from the prior voyage had symptoms of coronavirus. The Defendant concealed from passengers at any time prior to boarding or while they were already onboard that there were passengers on the prior voyage with symptoms of the coronavirus and other passengers with symptoms of the coronavirus on the subject voyage. The Defendant's action endangered the lives of the Plaintiff and the Class when it decided to wait one day to order passengers to isolate in their staterooms after being informed that the passenger who presented to the Grand Princess medical facility with symptoms of the coronavirus on February 20, 2020, tested positive for COVID-19. In so doing, the Defendant subjected over 2,000 passengers to the highly contagious coronavirus, and exposing passengers to actual risk of immediate physical injury and death. Princess Cruises is a cruise line owned by Carnival Corporation & plc. The company is incorporated in Bermuda and its headquarters are in Santa Clarita, California. The provides tour operator specializing in luxury cruises. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol Lynn Finklehoffe, Esq. LIPCON MARGULIES ALSINA & W INKLEMAN One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 373-3016 Facsimile: (305) 373-6204 E-mail: cfinklehoffe@lipcon.com PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Suits Over Lantheus Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in six lawsuits -- four of which are putative class action suits -- related to its merger with Lantheus Holdings, Inc. On February 20, 2020, the company announced the signing of an amended and restated agreement and plan of merger with Lantheus Holdings, Inc. (the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger Agreement reflects the renegotiation of certain of the terms of the company's original agreement for the proposed merger entered into on October 1, 2019. Eight lawsuits, five putative class actions and three individual actions, were brought against Progenics and the Progenics Board by purported stockholders of Progenics alleging inadequate disclosure by Progenics in the registration statement filed on November 12, 2019 related to the merger. Three of such lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by plaintiffs, with no settlements from, or other agreed obligations by, the respective defendants thereunder. Two additional putative class actions and an individual action were subsequently filed, alleging, among other things, inadequate disclosures in the amended registration statement filed on March 16, 2020 and the proxy statement filed on March 19, 2020. On November 22, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02183, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Johnson I Action. On March 5, 2020, the Johnson I Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On November 25, 2019, a second purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Thompson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02194, against Progenics, certain members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Plato Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Thompson Action. On March 10, 2020, the Thompson Action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On November 26, 2019, a third purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wang v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-10936, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Wang Action. On December 9, 2019, a fourth purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Michael A. Bernstein IRA v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-21200, against Progenics, members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Bernstein IRA Action. On April 21, 2020 an amended complaint was filed in the Bernstein IRA Action, and on May 6, 2020, the Bernstein IRA action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-03521. On December 12, 2019, a fifth purported stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Pill v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02268, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board. The purported stockholder voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice and the court closed the case on March 10, 2020. On December 20, 2019, a sixth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Hess v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11683, against Progenics, Progenics' Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Hess Action. On April 8, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Hess Action. On April 2, 2020, a seventh purported stockholder filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Goldstone v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02750, against Progenics, members of the Progenics Board, Lantheus Holdings, and Merger Sub, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Goldstone Action. On April 6, 2020, the purported stockholder in the Johnson Action filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Johnson v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02847, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Johnson II Action. On April 8, 2020, an eighth purported stockholder filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Krueger v. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02913, against Progenics and members of the Progenics Board, which is referred to in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as the Krueger Action. The complaints in the Wang, Bernstein IRA, Hess, Goldstone, Johnson II, and Krueger Actions allege, among other things, that Progenics and the members of the Progenics Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and 17 C.F.R. Section 244.100 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by misstating or omitting certain allegedly material information in the registration statement filed with the SEC on November 12, 2019 related to the merger, the amended registration statement filed on March 16, 2020, or the proxy statement filed on March 19, 2020. The Goldstone complaint further alleges that members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Progenics and that Lantheus Holdings and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the merger, rescission or damages in the event of consummation of the merger, declaratory relief related to disclosures in the registration statement, and certain fees and expenses. Progenics intends to vigorously defend itself against these complaints. Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc., develops innovative medicines for targeting and treating cancer, with a pipeline that includes several product candidates in later-stage clinical development. These products in development include therapeutic agents designed to precisely target cancer (AZEDRA(R) and 1095), and imaging agents (1404 and PyLTM) intended to enable clinicians and patients to accurately visualize and manage their disease. QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY: Title IX Class Action Settlement Updated --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Flamme, writing for The Quinnipiac Chronicle, reports that an update to the Title IX class action lawsuit settlement, Biediger, et al v. Quinnipiac University, said that the university's resources are going to be spent improving athletic opportunities for female students rather than continued litigation. According to an email sent to all Quinnipiac current and prospective female athletes, the case was filed in 2009, on behalf of all present, prospective and future female students who are involved in athletics at the university. In 2013, the case was settled, and Quinnipiac agreed to improve its female athletic participation and facilities, which included constructing an indoor track facility. However, due the physical limitations, the indoor track facility cannot be constructed. The legal representation for both sides of the case have come to the agreement of a proposed amendment decree. Quinnipiac is relieved of the obligation of building the indoor track facility in exchange for providing other benefits for female athletes and their teams. The proposed amendment decree includes terms such as providing four additional full scholarships to the women's track and field team to be allocated to recruits, as well as scholarships for women's cross country athletes. Quinnipiac will increase the combined budget for the indoor and outdoor women's track teams. Quinnipiac's women's volleyball team will be recognized as a "tier one" sport and four more scholarships will be provided to the team. Quinnipiac will also resurface the hanging track in the recreation center, as well as remove athletic equipment from the corners of the hanging track. The university will then arrange for six hours of practice time weekly for the indoor track team at Yale's Coxe Cage, or an equivalent facility. . The university will build a strength and conditioning facility either in or near the recreation center for athletes to use exclusively. Quinnipiac will install an indoor golf practice cage, and the women's golf team will have priority access to the facility. The number of scholarships to any women's team will not be reduced while the amended decree is in effect. As long as Quinnipiac remains compliant with the amended decree, claims will not be brought against the university that it has violated Title IX while the amended decree is in effect. The university will pay $90,000 in class counsel fees to compensate for the work in negotiating the amended decree. The original settlement expected that the university build a competition facility for the women's field hockey team, a rugby pitch, an indoor track and field facility and another competition facility for a new "tier one" women's sport, that the university chose to be soccer. In 2017, Quinnipiac opened its facilities for women's soccer and field hockey and completed a rugby pitch. "Quinnipiac is committed to providing equal and outstanding opportunities for all of our Division I athletes and ensuring equitable treatment of all athletes," said John Morgan, associate vice president for public relations. "We believe these improvements will greatly enhance the opportunities available to our female athletes and further strengthen our women's athletics program." The amended decree will be in effect until June 30, 2024. [GN] QUOTEWIZARD.COM: Faces Perrong TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC. The case is captioned as ANDREW PERRONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES SIMILARLY SITUATED v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02506-JCJ (E.D. Pa., May 28, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Curtis Joyner. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act regarding restrictions of use of telephone equipment. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, provides online insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW PC 176 Feferal St., 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P MCCUE One South Ave., 3rd Fl. Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, P.C. 304 Ross St., 7th Fl. Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-1250 E-mail: csm@ConsumerLaw365.com ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECH: Bergeron Seeks Tuition Fee Refund -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Bergeron, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Rochester Institute of Technology, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-06283 (W.D. N.Y., May 1, 2020), seeks disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained for tuition, fees, on-campus housing, and meals; injunctive relief including enjoining California State University from retaining the pro-rated, unused monies paid for tuition, fees, on-campus housing and meals; reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses; prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and such other and further relief as may be just and proper, plus refunds of all tuition fees paid on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages resulting from breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) operates a higher learning campus in Henrietta, State of New York where Bergeron is currently enrolled. He has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester. RIT decided to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease. Bergeron claims to be deprived the benefits of in-person instruction, access to campus facilities, student activities and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition. RIT refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, fees and other costs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Mullin, Esq. FERR & MULLIN, P.C. 7635 Main Street Fishers P.O. Box 440 Fishers, NY 14453 Tel: (585) 869-0210 Fax: (585) 869-0211 Email: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com - and - John M. Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (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 Tel: (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 Tel: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com ROYAL BANK: American Video Suit Seeks Recovery of Agent Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ American Video Duplicating, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Royal Bank of Canada, City National Bank, Small Business Loan Source, Inc., BSD Capital, LLC, Celtic Investment, Inc., Celtic Bank Corporation and Doe Lenders 1 to 4,975, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04036 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief under the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. This legislation included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury to provide support to entrepreneurs and small businesses. Part of the CARES Act is the "Paycheck Protection Program" (PPP) that provides small businesses with loans to provide small businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance to fund payrolls. Said loans are administered by Treasury, backed by the Federal Government, but funded by private lenders, including the Defendants. American Video Duplicating is a consulting firm based in California. It sought to obtain PPP loans through the Defendants on behalf of its clients and expected to be paid agent fees from the Lenders upon funding of its clients' loans under the PPP. However, it was either denied or would be paid only fifty percent of the mandated fees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael E. Adler, Esq. GRAYLAW GROUP, INC. 26500 Agoura Road, #102-127 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 532-2833 Facsimile: (818) 532-2834 Email: meadler@graylawinc.com - and - Harmeet K. Dhillon. Esq. Nitoj P. Singh. Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 Email: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com nsingn@dhillionlaw.com RUBY RECEPTIONISTS: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., Alex Oxyer, Esq. and Paul Waldera, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in McKenzie Law Firm, P.A., et al. v. Ruby Receptionists, Inc., 18-CV-1921, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94299 (D. Or. May 29, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon lessened the standard for plaintiffs to obtain an order limiting the ability of defense counsel to communicate with absent class members, even when there is an existing business relationship between the defendant and the class members. This case is a must-read for employers facing class action litigation. Case Background In McKenzie, the plaintiffs brought class claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other contractual claims based on the defendant's allegedly misleading billing practices in providing virtual reception services. Three days after the Court certified a class of defendant's customers, the class counsel advised defense counsel that they may not contact absent class members either directly or through third parties. Class counsel argued that they fully represented all absent class members and asked defense counsel to agree not to contact any of them. Defense counsel disagreed and argued class counsel only had a limited representation of the absent class members, and, accordingly, defense counsel could still contact them. Defense counsel also disagreed that the defendant itself could not have communications with class members regarding the claims, defenses, or subject matter of this litigation. As the defendant had a contractual relationship with many of the class members, defense counsel argued that the defendant had the legal right to communicate with absent class members. Class counsel thereafter filed a motion requesting that the Court limit defense counsel's ex parte contact with class members without prior approval of the Court. The Court's Decision After beginning with an analysis of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting attorneys from communicating with represented parties and the standards under Rule 23 of limiting contact between parties in class litigation, the Court focused on whether the evidence in the case revealed that "a threatened communication" between defense counsel or the defendant and a class member was more than just "a theoretical possibility," such that the Court should exercise its ability to limit communication with class members. The Court found defense counsel's representation to the plaintiff's counsel that they disagreed that they needed to cease and desist from contacting class members constituted circumstantial evidence of a threatened communication. In reaching its conclusion, the Court analogized the situation to a property dispute: "[I]f a property owner asks a person not to enter the owner's property and the person responds by saying that the person has the legal right to enter the owner's property without permission, that reasonably may be interpreted as a threat to trespass." McKenzie, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94299 at *11. Thus, in the Court's view, defense counsel's actions could reasonably be interpreted as a threat to communicate with absent class members. The Court also examined the defendant's own actions to ascertain whether there was threatened communication with absent class members. The Court acknowledged that the defendant had the legal right to contact class members, even about the pending litigation. However, the Court cautioned that the defendant could normally communicate with class members "provided that there is no participation, advice, or assistance of any kind by Defense Counsel." Id. at *12. Further, the Court held that defense counsel's argument that its client should be able to communicate with the class members about the litigation, taken in the context of the lawsuit, was further evidence of a threat to communicate with the class members. Notably, during class certification briefing, the defendant sought and filed a dozen declarations opposing class certification from putative class members, showing a history of communicating with absent class members with the assistance of its counsel. After concluding that there was more than a theoretical possibility that defense counsel and the defendant threatened to communicate with class members, the Court analyzed whether the defendant's communications (with or without any assistance from counsel) to absent class members created a risk of abuse such that they should be limited, even if they normally would have been allowed. The Court highlighted how unilateral communications with absent class members, without the opportunity for class counsel to respond, could irreparably damage the case. This was especially a concern where the defendant and the class were "involved in an ongoing business relationship." Id. While many absent class members were lawyers with a basic legal knowledge, many of those lawyers did not have expertise in the relevant area of law. Other absent class members had no legal training and were particularly susceptible to undue influence from the defendant. Based on the defendant's previous attempts to communicate with absent class members to oppose class certification, the Court held there was a realistic risk of abuse that could warrant an order prohibiting class member contact. Against this record, the Court balanced the risks of "unsupervised, unilateral communications" to the class members with the legitimate need for the defendant to communicate with its customers. Ultimately, the Court issued a specifically tailored order that prohibited defense counsel from communicating with any class member and prohibited the defendant from initiating any communication with any class member regarding or referring to the lawsuit without prior approval from the Court or class counsel. However, the Court held that if a client class member contacted the defendant, it could only respond by stating that it may not discuss this lawsuit or anything about it. Implications For Employers One of the trickiest issues for employers to handle when facing employment litigation is how to communicate with their employees, without risking further claims. Employers must always be aware of what they are communicating to their employees, especially when those employees are or may be class members in threatened or ongoing litigation. Courts have been wary of communications sent to represented parties by the opposing side, particularly when there is an ongoing relationship between class members and the defendant. The ruling in the McKenzie case shows that even threatened communications, without any follow up, are enough to warrant an order limiting all communications by employers themselves, hampering an employer's ability to later fight the case with declarations and other support from would-be class members. When faced with class or collective employment litigation, employers should put together a comprehensive response plan with their counsel so that they do not run afoul of the limitations on communications with represented parties or create a risk of abuse. Armed with a proactive plan, employers can avoid many of the pitfalls presented in this case and prevent a communication order from the Court limiting their ability to speak to their own employees. [GN] RYDER SYSTEM: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R). Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE: R) Class Period: July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020 The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Ryder made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Ryder's financial results were inflated as a result of the Company's practice of overstating the residual values of the vehicles in its fleet because there was no reasonable basis to believe that the Company would sell its used vehicles for the amounts that it had assigned to them; and (2) that, as a result, Ryder's residual values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles by such a degree that the Company ultimately took a $357 million depreciation charge in 2019 related to Ryder's reduction of its residual values to align them with the amounts for which they could realistically be sold. To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, contact: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: (310) 914-5007 E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com Web site: http://www.frankcruzlaw.com/ If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] SB CAPITAL: Santos Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Manual Laborers ---------------------------------------------------------------- DARWIN ROMERO SANTOS, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- SB CAPITAL GROUP II LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-06987 (D.N.J., June 8, 2020) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon willful violations that the Defendant committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (ii) the overtime provisions of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law; (iii) the full payment provision of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law; (iv) the overtime provisions of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968; and (v) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein. Defendant employed Plaintiff as a manual laborer from on or about August 14, 2018 through December 20, 2018 and from on or about October 27, 2019 until on or about December 21, 2019. Throughout his employment, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff at the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for any hours that he worked in excess of 40 per week, and instead paid him at his straight-time rate for those hours. Plaintiff and other manual laborers repeatedly complained to Defendant regarding their failure to pay proper overtime compensation. However, Defendant did not correct its practices regarding the payment of overtime compensation. SB CAPITAL GROUP II LLC is a financial consultant based in Columbus, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com SCWORX CORP: Facing Suits Over COVID-19 Rapid Test Kits ------------------------------------------------------- SCWorx Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is facing two securities class action suits related to its April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. On April 29, 2020, a securities class action case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its CEO. The action is captioned Daniel Yannes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. This lawsuit alleges that the Company and its CEO mislead investors in connection with the Company's April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. The plaintiffs in this action are seeking unspecified monetary damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these proceedings. In connection with this litigation, the Company may be obligated to indemnify its CEO and any of its officers or directors who incur any liability or expense incurred as a result of serving at our company’s request in such capacity. On May 27, 2020, a second securities class was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its CEO. The action is captioned Caitlin Leeburn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCWorx Corp. and Marc S. Schessel, Defendants. This lawsuit also alleges that the Company and its CEO mislead investors in connection with the Company's April 13, 2020 press release with respect to the sale of COVID-19 rapid test kits. The plaintiffs in this action are also seeking unspecified monetary damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these proceedings. SCWorx Corp. provides software solutions for the management of health care providers' foundational business applications. The company is based in New York, New York. SCWORX CORP: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against SCWorx Corporation (NASDAQ: WORX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-04072, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired SCWorx securities between April 13, 2020, and April 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased SCWorx securities during the class period, you have until June 29, 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 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com Tel: 888.476.6529 Toll-Free: 888.4-POMLAW, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. SCWorx provides data content and services related to the repair, normalization, and interoperability of information for healthcare providers. 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 SCWorx's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations; (ii) SCWorx's buyer was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (iii) as a result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or entirely fabricated; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On April 13, 2020, before the market opened, SCWorx announced that it had received a committed purchase order of two million COVID-19 rapid testing kits, "with provision for additional weekly orders of 2 million units for 23 weeks, valued at $35M per week." On this news, the Company's share price increased by $9.77, to close at $12.02 per share on April 13, 2020. On April 17, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report doubting the validity of the deal, calling it "completely bogus." According to Hindenburg Research, the COVID-19 test supplier that SCWorx is buying from, Promedical, has a Chief Executive Officer "who formerly ran another business accused of defrauding its investors and customers" and "was also alleged to have falsified his medical credentials," Promedical claimed to the Food and Drug Administration and regulators in Australia to be offering COVID-19 test kits manufactured by Wondfo, but "Wondfo put out a press release days ago stating that Promedical ‘fraudulently mispresented themselves' as sellers of its Covid-19 tests and disavowed any relationship," and the buyer that SCWorx claimed to have lined up does not appear to be "capable of handling hundreds of millions of dollars in orders." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.19, or more than 17%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $5.76 per share on April 21, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. On April 22, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission halted trading of the Company's stock. As of the filing of this complaint, trading remains halted. 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. See http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/[GN] SILVER LAKE: Rachimi Alleges Insider Trading -------------------------------------------- SAM RACHIMI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SILVER LAKE GROUP, L.L.C., BC PARTNERS LLP, RAYMOND SVIDER, and JUSTIN BATEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-03766 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2020) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Intelsat S.A. contemporaneously with Defendants' unlawful trades from November 5, 2019 through and including November 18, 2019, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action is based on the unlawful use of material non-public information by Defendants who collectively gained over $185 million in profits and losses avoided by selling shares of Intelsat to Plaintiff and other unknowing public shareholders prior to disclosing the true financial and operational condition of Intelsat. Prior to the inception of the Class Period, Intelsat endeavored for several years to clear hundreds of megahertz of wavebands for 5G usage in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission, in exchange for monetary compensation, specifically, the "C-Band," a range of mid-level bands that Intelsat and a few other satellite operators held usage rights. On November 18, 2019, Intelsat's proposal was rejected by the FCC, which indicated a preference for a public auction of the C-Band spectrum rather than a private sale, as shown by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's Twitter statement that "I'm confident they'll quickly conduct a public auction that will give everyone a fair chance to compete for this #5G spectrum, while preserving availability of the upper 200 MHz of the band for continued delivery of programming." Following this news, Intelsat's stock fell over 40%, closing down from $13.41 per share on November 15, 2019 to $8.03 per share on November 18, the next trading day, on extremely heavy volume. Defendants BC Partners and Silver Lake knew that trading based on this confidential material information was prohibited, or were otherwise reckless in not knowing, but did so anyway, disposing of their Intelsat stock to Plaintiff and other class members prior to the news was announced and the Company’s shares plummeted. As a result of their illegal and improper course of conduct, Defendants' violations of U.S. securities laws have damaged Plaintiff and the Class. BC Partners, a substantial Intelsat shareholder since 2008, is incorporated in England and Wales with its registered office at 40 Portman Square, London, and is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom. Silver Lake Group, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California, operates as an investment management firm registered with the SEC, with approximately $2.8 billion in assets under management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announces that a class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE). If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. (SRNE) If you suffered a loss, contact us at http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/sorrento-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7183&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2020 Class Period: May 15, 2020 - May 20, 2020 Allegations against SRNE include that: (i) the Company's initial finding of "100% inhibition" in an in vitro virus infection will not necessarily translate to success or safety in vivo, or in person; (ii) the Company's finding was not a "cure" for COVID-19; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 E-mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: July 22 Final Settlement Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company is awaiting approval of the settlement of a consolidated class action suit over the Company's disclosures involving the drug QAPZOLA. Nevada District Court Judge Richard F Boulware, II granted preliminary approval of the deal following a hearing on February 19, 2020. The Court set a final settlement approval hearing for July 22, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. in Las Vegas. The cases are Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-GWF) (the "Hartsock Action"). On November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action. These class action lawsuits allege that the company and certain of its executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business and the prospects of approval for the company's New Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for QAPZOLA in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On July 23, 2019, the company entered into a memorandum of understanding with these plaintiffs for a collective settlement that is pending court approval. No further updates were provided by the Company. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with a primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage clinical and commercial products. STAPLES INC: Sanitizer Doesn't Kill 99.99% of Germs, Lagorio Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM LAGORIO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STAPLES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-11015-JCB (D. Mass., May 28, 2020), arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive and misleading marketing and sale of topical antiseptic hand sanitizer product, which allegedly kills 99.995% of germs. The Product contains a representation on the front of the label in prominent print as follows: "99.99% GERM KILLING SANITIZER." The Defendant's Web site represents that the Product "kills 99.9 percent of germs." The Product is available for purchase in various sizes by consumers from the Defendant's retail stores and online through a Web site that is owned and/or controlled by the Defendant at this address: http://staples.com/. The Plaintiff contends that despite the Product label and Website representation concerning the killing of at least 99.9% of germs, there are no reliable studies that support the Representations. He adds that the Product does not kill a variety of germs and/or bacteria including certain germs/bacteria that cause a variety of diseases, including certain strains of influenza, Ebola, and norovirus. The Product consists primarily of ethyl alcohol under the "perk" brand name. The Product has enabled the Defendant to sell more of the Product and at higher prices per unit than it would have in the absence Defendant's misconduct, says the complaint. Staples Inc. is an American office retail company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward L. Manchur, Esq. MANCHUR LAW P.O. Box 3156 Peabody, MA 01960 Telephone: (978) 333-1013 E-mail: manchurlaw@gmail.com STATE FARM: Alissa's Flowers Suit Questions Overcharged Premiums ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALISSA'S FLOWERS, INC. v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-04093-WJE (W.D. Mo., May 28, 2020), seeks to remedy disparity, and seeks damages and other relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated entities, who were overcharged premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the complaint, while insurers offer billions of dollars in insurance premium relief to automotive policyholders, they are offering no premium relief to businesses that are experiencing a similar reduction in exposure. The Plaintiff contends that despite a comparable drop in insurable conduct, insurers have not offered any sort of premium relief to businesses, even though they also have experienced a substantial reduction in business and exposure due to COVID-19. Like thousands of other businesses across the United States, the Plaintiff's operations have been and continue to be disrupted by government restrictions related to the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which causes the infectious disease COVID-19, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Missouri business that owns and operates a flower shop in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. The Defendant is an insurance company licensed to do business in Missouri. State Farm is authorized to write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and casualty coverage in exchange for a premium to businesses nationwide, including in Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Matthew V. Bartle, Esq. David L. Marcus, Esq. BARTLE + MARCUS LLC 116 West 47th Street, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 256-4614 Facsimile: (816) 222-0534 E-mail: mbartle@bmlawkc.com dmarcus@bmlawkc.com STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Company is seeking dismissal of lawsuits initiated by plaintiffs that have opted out of a securities class action. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which was subsequently amended. As amended, the complaint purported to assert claims on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and February 21, 2018, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the Company's public offering of depositary shares on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purported to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Before the court had ruled on the pending motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached a settlement agreement as previously disclosed (the "Securities Class Action Settlement"). The court held a final fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which it granted final approval of the Settlement and took under advisement the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel from the settlement fund. Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company. On March 6, 2020, the Company filed motions to dismiss these actions, which motions remain pending. The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously and resolve them as appropriate. Stericycle said, "The Company has not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, as it cannot estimate any reasonably possible loss or any range of reasonably possible losses that the Company may incur." Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. STERICYCLE INC: Contract Class Accord Opt-Out Members File Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2020, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that certain class members who have opted out of the final settlement in the lawsuits over consumer contracts have launched lawsuits against the Company. Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted, among other things, that the Company had imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief. These related actions were ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached a settlement agreement, as previously disclosed, which settlement agreement obtained court approval on March 8, 2018 (the "Settlement"). Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will defend and resolve those actions. The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these collective matters, which is not material. Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. TAMMAC HOLDINGS: Parrillo Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA and NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUSAN PARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAMMAC HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-00583-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 28, 2020), seeks to recover overtime compensation, spread of hours compensation, and damages arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their Field Representatives and/or Field Collection Specialists to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation, as required by applicable Federal and State law. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a Field Representative or Field Collection Specialist since 1996 until March of 2020. Tammac Holdings offers provides floor planning and third party financing for the manufactured housing market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 13066 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 - and - James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 TOYOTA MOTOR: Mendoza Product Liability Suit Moved to New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-00076 (Filed Jan. 13, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the for Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on June 1, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06661 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The case is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and a class of current and former owners and lessees of Scion FR-S vehicles manufactured and/or distributed by Toyota for sale or lease nationwide having the model year 2013 and subject to NHTSA Recall No. 18V-27 772000. The Class Vehicles allegedly pose an imminent and significant safety hazard to vehicle operators and the public. Toyota Motor is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Mobasseri, Esq. David Alan Cooper, Esq. Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT B. MOBASSERI, PC 1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2140 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 282-2000 Facsimile: (213) 282-3000 E-mail: robertm@mobasserilaw.com dcooper@mobasserilaw.com brohr@mobasserilaw.com TRAVEL GUARD: Gustafson Sues in Kansas Over Insurance Disputes -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Travel Guard Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Paul B. Gustafson and Debra R. Gustafson, for themselves and all others similarly situated v. Travel Guard Group, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, a Pennsylvania insurance company; AIG Travel, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and AIG Travel Assist, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-02272-KHV-GEB (D. Kan., May 29, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil. The lawsuit demands $5 million in damages alleging violation of insurance-related laws regarding insurance contract. Travel Guard is a North American travel insurance provider. Travel Guard specializes in providing travel insurance, assistance and emergency travel service plans. National Union offers fire insurance. AIG offers travel insurance.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Skeens, Esq. Kip D. Richards, Esq. WALTERS RENWICK RICHARDS SKEENS & VAUGHAN, PC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2500 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 421-6620 Facsimile: (816) 421-4747 E-mail: dskeens@wrrsvlaw.com krichards@wrrsvlaw.com TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Ober FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------- Aida Ober, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., and LVNV Funding LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-02571 (E.D. Pa., June 1, 2020), seeks damages and declaratory relief for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. On May 17, 2020, the Defendants sent the Plaintiff a collection letter via email regarding an alleged debt owed. The Plaintiff contends that TrueAccord's letter on behalf of LVNV is threatening and harassing by implying imminent legal action if the consumer fails to contact the Defendant. She adds that the usage of language regarding attorney review and threats of litigation if there is no contact from the consumer implies that litigation is imminent, when in fact at this stage, the account is nowhere near the litigation stage. The Plaintiff is a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, County of Lancaster. The Defendants are debt collectors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com U.S. BANCORP: Wage Class Action Dismissal Reversed -------------------------------------------------- Maeve Allsup, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a financial consultant's membership in a dismissed subclass of a suit against U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc. doesn't prevent him from pursuing an identical class action against the company, a California appeals court decided, reversing dismissal of class claims. When Scott Williams joined U.S. Bancorp in 2007, he became part of a class seeking restitution for overtime wages, wage deductions, waiting penalties, and missed meal and rest breaks. He was also part of two subclasses, one of employees who worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving overtime pay. [GN] U.S. PIZZA: Smith Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage & Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. PIZZA CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00739-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 12, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from December 2018 to February 2020 as a non-exempt, hourly paid Server. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated servers performed duties that generate tips. But, Defendant took advantage of tips and used it to pay the required minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped Servers. Allegedly, Defendant failed to distinguish between time that Plaintiff and other servers spent on tipped work and time spent on non-tipped work, thereby failing to compensate them for all hours worked at the standard minimum wage. U.S. Pizza Co., Inc. owns and operates restaurants throughout Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Emails: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Upfront Pricing Is Deceptive, Matthews Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTIASHEA MATTHEWS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Case No. CGC-20-584582 (Cal. Cir., San Francisco Cty., May 29, 2020), is brought against Uber concerning its "Upfront Pricing" for Uber rides. The Defendant develops, markets and facilitates the sale of shared rides through its well-known Uber ride-hailing app. Starting in 2016 and continuing through to today, the Defendant marketed its App as having Upfront Pricing--a feature the Defendant claimed provided accuracy, transparency, simplicity, and certainty to riders by notifying them of the total cost of a ride prior to purchase. Unfortunately for consumers this was and is untrue, as the Defendant routinely overcharged consumers, says the complaint. Uber is an American multinational ride-hailing company offering services that include peer-to-peer ridesharing, ride service hailing, food delivery, and a micromobility system with electric bikes and scooters.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5525 E-mail: ak@kazly.com yana@kzlg.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP REESE LLP 100 West 93 Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com geranade@reesellp.com UNITED NATIONS: Toks Banc Suit Asserts That COVID-19 Is a Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- TOKS BANC CORP., ET AL., AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNITED NATIONS, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00393-HEH (E.D. Va., June 1, 2020), seeks to declare corona virus/COVID-19 aka "virus scam" a "scam," "sham," "fraud," and total global nuisance and paranoia due to no strong evidence to sustain such virus exists let alone to cause sickness and death in living persons because mere living persons being declared sick and dead from any virus does not constitute evidence of pandemic. According to the complaint, since the beginning of human existence sickness and death is normal not abnormal. No country, entity or natural person can be linked to be responsible for this virus. There is no scientific evidence COVID-19 actually exists let alone harmful. Any form of virus or bacteria or any elements that can cause sickness and death in natural person must be presented and backed with strong evidence. Mere statements and labeling of a "virus" causing sickness and death are not enough to declare "pandemic." The Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable relief due to all the findings, articles, pundits' opinions, images, labels, media coverage, that have supported existence of coronavirus. The Plaintiffs include TOKS, 5 WORLD MARKETS CORPORATION, WORLD MARKETS TRANSFER AGENCY CORPORATION, GLOBAL PROSPERITY CORPORATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, ORGANIZATION OF THE PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES (OPEC), TREASURY DEPARMENT OF UNITED STATES, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF UNITED STATES, FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND, INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, ASSOCIATION OF TENNIS PROFESSIONALS, WOMEN'S TENNIS PROFESSIONALS, INTERNATIONAL TENNIS FEDERATION, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER, CHARLES, PRINCE OF WALES, IDRIS ELBA, ACTOR, SINGER, PRODUCER, SABRINA DHOWRE ELBA, FASHION MODEL, DAKPRESCOT,QUARTERBACK DALLAS COWBOYS, BRIAN ALLEN, OFFENSIVE LINEMAN LOS ANGELES RAMS, MADONNA LOUISE CICCONE, SINGER, SONGWRITER; DEMOCRATIC PARTY, REPUBLICAN PARTY, ADESIJUOLA OGUNJOBI, and MEMBERS OF THE CLASS AND SUBCLASSES. The World Health Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health. The WHO Constitution, which establishes the agency's governing structure and principles, states its main objective as "the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health." The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the leading, national public health institute of the United States. The CDC is a United States federal agency, under the Department of Health and Human Services, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ade juola Ogunjobi, Esq. 831 Midlothian TPKE Richmond, VA 23235 Telephone: (904) 229-4649 E-mail: adesijuolaogunjobi@gmail.com VAIL RESORTS: Malachowsky Wants Passes Refunds Over COVID Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- SOFIA MALACHOWSKY v. VAIL RESORTS, INC. and THE VAIL CORPORATION d/b/a VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01529 (D. Colo., May 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated alleging that although the Defendants charged skiers for the ski passes, which entailed future access to various ski resorts, the Defendants issued no refunds upon the closure of the resorts. The Plaintiff contends that even though skiers could no longer use the passes, the Defendants have chosen to keep the money. The Defendants sell ski passes that allow purchasers access to various resorts, with the passes ranging from single-day access to season-long. The passes, once purchased, give skiers the right to access the resorts and ski on the day(s) of their choosing. In exchange, Defendants received substantial up-front revenue from skiers. The Defendants sold these passes for the 2019-2020 winter ski season. While the passes were generally used as expected until March, the ski resorts at which the passes were used were closed by mid-March in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The resorts have stayed closed ever since, effectively ending the ski season months earlier than expected and eliminating the utility of the passes from the day of the closure onward, says the complaint. Ms. Malachowsky purchased one of the passes at issue and seeks to compel the Defendants to provide appropriate remuneration. She spent over $500 on an Epic Adult Tahoe Local Pass for the 2019-2020 ski season and has been precluded from using the pass since mid-March 2020. She says she has received no refund for her purchase of the pass. Vail Resorts, Inc., is an American mountain resort company. Vail Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vail Resorts, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Steven M. Tindall, Esq. Karen Barth Menzies, Esq. David Stein, Esq. Steve Lopez, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com smt@classlawgroup.com kbm@classlawgroup.com ds@classlawgroup.com sal@classlawgroup.com WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Salvagno Discrimination Suit Moved to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS SALVAGNO v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. GLO-L-0488-20 (Filed April 17, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 28, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-06450-NLH-JS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is a former Walmart associate, who claims that his termination on September 7, 2019, was pretext for disability discrimination and perceived disability discrimination, and that Walmart failed to accommodate his alleged disability pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gwyneth R. Williams, Esq. Patrick J. McDonnell, Esq. MCDONNELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Route 70 West Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: 856 429 5300 Facsimile: 856 310 7900 E-mail: pmcdonnell@mcda-law.com gwilliams@mcda-law.com WELLS FARGO: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 9 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or "the Company") (NYSE: WFC) for violations of Sections 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 April 5, 2020 and May 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 3, 2020. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Wells Fargo schemed to improperly allocate government-backed loans as part of the PPP program, and failed to maintain appropriate controls over its loans as part of the government program. This action left the company open to litigation risk as well as regulatory attention by the federal government. 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 Wells Fargo, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] WELSPUN PIPES: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Vines FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Anthony Vines and Dominique Lewis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Anthony Vines, et al. v. Welspun Pipes Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00509-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Vines, et al. v. Welspun Pipes Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2168, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on July 20, 2020; -- Brief of Appellant Dominique Lewis and Anthony Vines is due on July 20, 2020; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Anthony Vines, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and Dominique Lewis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel D. Ford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM Suite 411, One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees Welspun Pipes Inc., Welspun Tubular LLC, and Welspun USA, Inc. are represented by: J. Bruce Cross, Esq. Gregory James Northern, Esq. CROSS & GUNTER 500 President Clinton Avenue P.O. Box 3178 Little Rock, AR 72203-3178 Telephone: (501) 371-9999 Facsimile: (501) 371-0035 E-mail: bcross@cgwg.com gnorthen@cgwg.com WILLIS TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Aon Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Heather Turner, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that Willis Towers Watson is facing a new class-action lawsuit in connection with its proposed merger with Aon, marking the third legal action against the company in the past month. The suit, filed June 5 by Halper Sadeh LLP on behalf of Wills shareholders, alleges that Willis violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it issued a materially misleading proxy statement recommending shareholders vote in favor of the Aon merger. Back in March, Aon agreed to purchase Willis in an almost $30 billion all-stock transaction. According to the complaint, the statement issued by Willis contained "incomplete and misleading information concerning, among other things, Willis Towers', Aon's, and the combined company's financial projections and the analyses performed by Willis Towers' financial advisor." The Halper Sadeh complaint is the second class-action, and the third lawsuit filed against Willis concerning the Aon deal -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in May. Last month, a suit pursuing claims against Willis and members of its board of directors was also filed in New York Southern District Court on behalf of stockholder Shiva Stein. Among its grievances, the Stein action seeks to "enjoin [Willis] from taking any steps to consummate the [proposed transaction with Aon] unless and until the [material information] is disclosed to Willis Tower Watson's stockholders or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants' violations of the Exchange Act." [GN] WORLD TRIATHLON: Class Action Seeks Refund for Race Cancellations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roman T. Galas, Esq. -- roman.galas@ansalaw.com -- of Ansa Assuncao LLP, in an article for Ansa Law, reported that as posited in a recent article, in the face of 2020 outdoor race postponements/cancellations due to the Covid-19 pandemic, racers should brace themselves for the reality that express legal waivers they are typically required to sign -- in which they waive any right to sue the race and agree that no refund will be provided in the event of any cancellation made in the race director's sole discretion -- make refunds a long shot. Based on those waivers, athletes will, rather, most likely have to settle for other options offered by race directors: automatic deferrals to a re-scheduled date, to the same race next year, or to a different race. Class Action Suit vs. World Triathlon Corporation ("WTC") & Competitor Group, Inc. ("CGI") Despite that legal reality, one disappointed racer took the baton on to spearhead a class action lawsuit against WTC and CGI, the respective owners of the popular Ironman and Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series race brands. In a 3-count breach of contract action filed May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, No. 8:20-cv-01182-TPB-AEP, Plaintiff Mikaela Ellenwood seeks certification of a class that includes all persons in the U.S. "who registered for and purchased access to an IRONMAN or Rock 'n' Roll Marathon Series event scheduled to take place in 2020 which was postponed or cancelled, and who were not provided a refund." In her complaint, Ellenwood claims WTC and CGI "have not delivered the events for which" she and other class-members paid. Given that she and other class-members "may not be able to arrange for, or feel comfortable with, participation in an event rescheduled for later in 2020, be able to participate in an event in a different city at another date, or be able and/or willing to have their registration deferred to a similar event in the same city in 2021," she alleges the deferral options offered "are not equivalent to what" they "bargained for." She further claims WTC and CGI "are not realizing the same level of operating costs for those events" (a dubious proposition, for the reasons noted in my last article; namely, race directors in fact spend much of the overhead costs months before the race takes place) and calls their refusal to refund entry fees a tactic "to maintain revenue and profit." She ultimately seeks refunds for herself and the class. Chances of Success? Racers hoping to draft behind Ellenwood's efforts may not want to get their hopes up. Not acknowledged in her complaint is the fact that Ironman and Rock 'n' Roll race registrants alike signed the same exact legal waiver. In it, athletes expressly agree that the race director has "sole discretion (whether for safety reasons, legal reasons, or any other reason)" to "delay or cancel" a race "for any reason," including conditions it believes "are unsafe or otherwise unsuitable," and if the race is "delayed, or cancelled for any reason," there is "no refund of [the] entry fee or any other costs incurred in connection with the Event." They further agree "[t]o release and not to sue" WTC or CGI for "any and all claims, liabilities, suits or expenses" related to their race "enrollment," including claims for "breach of contract or any other claim." Such waivers, though not necessarily favored, are nonetheless generally upheld under Florida law. As the Eleventh Circuit recognized in Cooper v. Meridian Yachts, Ltd.: Under Florida law, "[e]xculpatory provisions which attempt to relieve a party of his or her own negligence are generally looked upon with disfavor, and Florida law requires that such clauses be strictly construed against the party claiming to be relieved of liability." Sunny Isles Marina, Inc. v. Adulami, 706 So.2d 920, 922 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998). "Such provisions, however, have been found to be valid and enforceable by Florida courts where the intention is made clear and unequivocal." Id. 575 F.3d 1151, 1166–67 (11th Cir. 2009). In other words, such waivers are enforceable as long as they are "made clear and unequivocal in the contract, and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable party will know what he is contracting away." Id. (quoting Murphy v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Lake Wales, Inc., 974 So.2d 565, 568 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)). Releases like those signed by Rock 'n' Roll and Ironman athletes have been enforced by Florida courts in a variety of contexts, including gym membership, cruise spa services, and construction. See, respectively, Gayon v. Bally's Total Fitness Corp., 802 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001); Arch Ins. Co. v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., No. 11-20577-CIV, 2012 WL 4896045, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2012); Bartram, LLC v. C.B. Contractors, LLC, No. 1:09-CV-00254-SPM, 2011 WL 1299856, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2011). More aptly, such releases have been enforced in the specific context of recreational activities and sporting events such as wave running, scuba diving, racetrack spectating, sprint car racing, and even triathlon. See, respectively, In re Complaint of Royal Carribean Cruises Ltd., 459 F. Supp. 2d 1275, 1278–79 (S.D. Fla. 2006); Borden v. Phillips, 752 So. 2d 69, 73–74 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000); DeBoer v. Florida Offroaders Driver's Ass'n, Inc., 622 So.2d 1134, 1135-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Theis v. J & J Racing Promotions, 571 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990); Banfield v. Louis, 589 So. 2d 441, 444 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). While claimants invariably try to evade such releases by claiming they, e.g., are unconscionable, or the product of an imbalance in bargaining power, Florida courts have rejected such claims, finding "that in recreational settings there is no inequality of bargaining power." DeBoer, 622 So. 2d at 1136. Ellenwood also pleads claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). While the express waiver likely applies to both, it is worth noting that, as to the former, under Florida law, unjust enrichment claims are "precluded by the existence of an express contract between the parties concerning the same subject matter." Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (quotation omitted). As to the latter, "[w]hile conduct constituting a breach of contract may be actionable under FDUTPA, absent significant allegations of unfair or deceptive conduct, a complaint that merely alleges intentional breach of contract is insufficient to state a claim under FDUTPA." Grossman v. Porter, Inc., No. 09-81600-CIV, 2011 WL 13268865, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2011) (quotation omitted). Looking Ahead With counsel for both WTC and CGI having executed a Waiver of the Service of Summons in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), each has 60 days, or until July 27, to file an answer or motion under Rule 12. Given that a court can "properly consider a motion to dismiss for failure to state" a breach of contract claim when the contract "terms are unambiguous," Alhassid, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 1312, a motion to dismiss may be forthcoming. We will stay tuned. [GN] ZUORA INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Investigation ---------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., announces investigation into possible breach of fiduciary duties of Zuora, Inc. (ZUO) in connection with problems integrating its flagship RevPro product. Specifically, on April 28, the Court issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a proposed class action accusing Zuora of hiding the incompatibility of its two products. If you are an, and would like additional information about the investigation, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ LAW FIRM, P.C. Tel: 516-493-9780 Fax: 516-280-7376 E-mail: info@jlclasslaw.com [GN] [*] Businesses Face Biometric, Post-COVID Class Action Risks ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristine Argentine, Esq., and Paul Yovanic Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that biometric privacy continues to be a hot-button topic in the United States, and internationally, with states continuing to join the wave of strict consumer biometric data protection laws. In an effort to avoid costly class action litigation as the country begins to reopen following the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses should be mindful of the potential risks when implementing consumer-related biometric policies and procedures. What Is Biometric Data? Generally, biometric data are physical characteristics that can be used to digitally identify a person. Physiological biometrics pertain to the body and include DNA, retinal scans, fingerprints or other characteristics such as the shape of a person's hand or face or the sound of their voice. For example, lawsuits premised on the capture of physiological biometric data have included the use of facial recognition at stores, entrances to businesses and facilities, or on websites, or the use of finger print identification (often, but not always, in employment context). In addition, some states, such as California, have expanded biometric information to also include behavioral characteristics, which encompass a person's specific movements and actions or even thought-patterns. Current Biometric Privacy Laws Prior to 2018, only three states had biometric privacy laws: Illinois, Texas and Washington, and today, that number has nearly tripled. Among those three states, only the Illinois' Biometric and Information Privacy Act (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/) provided for a private right of action, which has made it very attractive to the plaintiffs' bar. In fact, between 2018 and 2019, there were over 200 BIPA class action complaints filed across the United States. In 2018, Louisiana amended its Data Breach Security Notification Law (Louisiana Revised Statutes 51:3071, et seq.) by expanding the definition of personal information to include biometric data and requiring notice to affected Louisiana residents within 60 days. It further amended the breach notification law to impose data security and destruction requirements on covered entities, which broadly includes any person that conducts business in the state. While the Louisiana Attorney General is currently the primary enforcer of data breach laws, private rights of action are permitted, which at the time, made it the second state to provide for such recourse. In 2019, Arkansas also jumped on the biometric bandwagon and expanded the scope of "personal information" in its Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) to include biometric data which is defined as data that is "generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics." On January 1, 2020, both California and Oregon's biometric privacy laws went into effect. California's Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA, Sec. 1798.100) creates proactive notice, consent, and deletion obligations, among others, depending on how the personal information is used. Notably, personal information under the CCPA is broadly expanded beyond a consumer's biometric information and includes a consumer's "internet or other electronic network activity information, including, but not limited to, browsing history, search history, and information regarding a consumer's interaction with an Internet Web site, application, or advertisement." Given the CCPA's broad definition and reach, lawsuits under the act could expectedly surpass BIPA in short time. Note, however, that while BIPA broadly provides for a private right of action for any person "aggrieved" by a violation of the act, the CCPA only provides consumers with a limited private right of action, specifically, when their "nonencrypted and nonredacted personal information" is "subject to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the business's violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures." Oregon amended its Consumer Information Protection Act (OCIPA, ORS 646A-600, et seq.), effective January 1, 2020, to follow the national trend of expanding laws beyond mere "identity theft protection," to focus on larger scale consumer privacy and data rights, which now includes protections for biometric data. Personal information under the act now includes automatic measurements of a consumer's physical characteristics, such as an image of a fingerprint, retina or iris, that are used to authenticate the consumer's identity in the course of a financial transaction or other transaction. Finally, just as the COVID pandemic halted the nation, New York moved forward with its final phase of enacting its own biometric privacy law. On March 21, 2020, New York completed its enactment of the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (SHIELD Act). The SHIELD Act was split into two phases: the first phase broadened the current notification requirements for data breaches (effective October 23, 2019) and the second phase requires businesses to put reasonable measures in place to protect information (effective March 21, 2020). The Act revised New York's 2005 breach notification law to include biometric information to its definition of personal information and requires businesses that maintain New York residents' personal information to include protections for biometric data when developing and implementing reasonable safeguards as required by the act. The SHIELD Act also provides for a limited private right of action. As with the CCPA, the SHIELD Act is very new and untested, and therefore, businesses are encouraged to ensure compliance with these new laws (and previously existing laws) before implementing any consumer-based biometric policies. Pending Biometric Privacy Laws Aside from the eight states discussed above, another eleven states have proposed biometric privacy laws over the past few years. Of those eleven states, Michigan, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, New Hampshire, Montana and Rhode Island have all introduced biometric privacy legislation since 2017, however, each have since died in committee or chamber. Though no biometric privacy legislation has been passed in New Jersey, the state attempted to pioneer biometric regulation with a proposed bill back in 2002, six years before biometric privacy legislation was first passed in the United States. Currently, only Massachusetts, Hawaii and Arizona have pending biometric privacy legislation. Post-COVID Concerns for Consumer-Based Businesses As businesses adjust to the new "norms" following COVID-19, they will likely explore policies and procedures that aim to minimize consumer interaction and protect its invitees and customers from potential exposure to the virus. While these policies are sure to give both the consumers and employees a feeling of comfort, such policies could be far more costly than expected if the proper measures are not taken beforehand. One solution that businesses have been exploring is the implementation of contactless infrared facial scanning at the entrances of store fronts to scan a consumer's temperature. However, this sort of policy, if unconsented, likely violates biometric privacy laws because, for example, BIPA prohibits unconsented capturing of "biometric identifiers," which includes a "scan of … face geometry." While the intended capture of data is the consumer's temperature, which is not covered under the law, it would nonetheless capture the consumer's facial geometry, which is. As discussed above, many of the recent biometric laws, and proposed legislation, gets its roots from BIPA, which means that contactless infrared temperature scanning would likely violate several other biometric privacy laws across the country. Therefore, such a strategy would require notice and consent to comply with the act. As recent as April 2020, it was announced that certain amusement parks would be conducting temperature checks at its security checkpoints to avoid any potential COVID outbreaks among its customers. While it is unclear what type of protocols will be implemented, there are reports that companies are exploring everything from handheld temperature checks to drone technology, and everything in between, including facial scanning. As businesses begin to implement policies to enhance consumer safety following the COVID-19 outbreak, some policies will undoubtedly be challenged in the courts and shape the development of biometric privacy laws across the country. The idea of capturing a consumer's facial geometry is not new for COVID-19, rather, it was also used as early as 2017 to provide for faster food service. In September 2017, restaurant chain Wow Bao was sued in Cook County, Illinois over its use of facial recognition technology to verify customers' orders. The complaint alleges that Wow Bao failed to obtain consent prior to capturing and storing customers' biometric information. This case is still pending, but decisions in this case will likely guide any future litigation or potential litigation as retailers and businesses start to put new policies in place. Following the practices below will be more important than ever since the landscape of biometric laws continue to evolve and related lawsuits gain traction in the court systems. As these laws are tested in the courts, we learn the strengths and dangers that these laws bear on businesses. Further pursuit of these lawsuits recently became more attractive with the Illinois Supreme Court's January 2019 decision finding that a "violation [of BIPA], in itself, is sufficient to support the individual's or customer's statutory cause of action." Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186, ¶ 33. Best Practices Businesses are encouraged to review and revise contacts and terms of conditions in order to cover new biometric privacy laws and developments in the existing laws. Revising terms and conditions recently proved to be beneficial for Shutterfly who, in 2019, was sued in Illinois by two consumers, alleging that Shutterfly illegally collected face scans of Chicago-area residents without adhering to BIPA regulations. (Vernita Miracle-Pond, et al. v. Shutterfly Inc., N.D. Ill. Case. No. 19-cv-04722). The court held that a Shutterfly user must arbitrate the accusations of the complaint even though Shutterfly unilaterally amended its arbitration clause after the lawsuit was filed. (2020 WL 2513099). The key factor in the court's decision was that Shutterfly users consent to unilateral modifications of the terms of use. (Id. at *6). The court rejected plaintiff's argument that a new arbitration provision was ineffective because she did not receive notice and held: "[o]n the contrary, when parties agree in advance to allow unilateral modifications to the terms of their contract, subsequent modifications are binding regardless of whether the other party later 'accepts' the change." (Id.) In order to ensure compliance with the growing landscape of biometric privacy laws, businesses should consult with experts before implementing any post-COVID procedures which may collect personal and physiological information about consumers, its customers or invitees. If a business chooses to proceed with collection of biometric data, it should, at a minimum, adhere to the practices below: 1. Develop and provide notice to consumers that covers information relating to capturing of biometric data, including the type of technology being used, the purpose for capturing the data, how the data will be captured, and how the data is being stored; 2. Obtain consent from the consumer for collection and storage of biometric data, where applicable by law; 3. Take steps to ensure that neither the business nor any vendor storing biometric data on the business's behalf sells or discloses the data; 4. Implement security protocols for the protection of biometric data; and 5. Have appropriate provisions in vendor contracts ensuring they comply with existing laws and that the business may retain the right to request information and have the right to be notified in the event of a suspected breach. [GN] [*] Insurance Claims Africa Mulls COVID-19 Loss Coverage Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- 702 reports that Insurance Claims Africa chief executive Ryan Woolley says the consultancy is ready to act on behalf of hundreds of claimants. A public loss adjuster is planning to go to court on behalf of hundreds of hospitality and travel sector clients whose contingent business interruption claims for the Covid-19 lockdown were declined. Insurance Claims Africa chief executive Ryan Woolley says his consultancy was going to act on behalf of over 400 claimants, whose claims exceeded R3 billion. The tourism and hospitality sectors, which employ hundreds of thousands of people directly, have been decimated since Covid-19 and the lockdown started. The insurance industry maintains their policies for specific notifiable disease were not designed to offer coverage for losses related to pandemics. The tourism sector is facing a severe crisis with a lot of insurance companies turning their backs on the policies and reneging on the contracts, saying we were happy to take the premiums but we're not going to pay your claims. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***