/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 1, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 131 Headlines ADVANCED MARKETING: Daschbach Sues Over Telemarketing Scheme AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Gorie Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Appeals W.D. Tenn. Ruling to 6th Cir. AQ TEXTILES: Faces Adam Product Liability Suit in North Carolina BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway BENIHANA INC: Rosales Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. BOYCE HYDRO: 60 Residents Join Mid-Michigan Flooding Class Action BRANCH BANKING: Quintana Appeals Consumer Suit Ruling to 4th Cir. BURDICK PAINTING: Faces Hernandez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Lopez Seeks Refund of School Fees CANADA: RCMP Class Action Members Likely to Reach at Least 1,000 CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Players' Class Action Settled CASA LUIS CORP: Underpays Waiters, Barron et al. Claim CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline CASPER SLEEP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline CENTRELINK: Gov't May Have to Pay Interest on Unlawful Debts CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Summers Says CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Ongoing CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Chernysh Sues over 60% Drop in Share Price CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline CHICKPEA AT 14TH ST: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Pacheco COCA-COLA COMPANY: Cantwell et al. Sue Over Deceptive Milk Labels COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Underpays Employees, Ricard-Tessier et al Say CORVIAS GROUP: Military Members Allege Breach of Rental Agreements CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Oyoque Seeks Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19 ENDO INT'L: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 18 Deadline ENDO INT'L: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 18 Deadline ERIE INSURANCE: Pub Drops COVID-19 Loss Coverage Class Action EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Locicero FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida FIFTH THIRD: Early Access Cash Advance Suit Ongoing FIRST HORIZON: Settlement Reached in GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit FIRST RELIANCE: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Says FIRST TRANSIT: Cuellar Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California GARFIELD BEACH: Naderi Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. GRAND CANYON: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 13 Deadline GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Woodley Securities Suit in SDNY HAM FARMS: Supplemental Consent Protective Order Entered in Lopez HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Dahlke Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline HORIZONS ETFS: Affleck Greene Attorney Discusses Court Ruling HOST INT'L: Kennedy et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages I AND D GLATT 2: Underpays Assistants, Erazo et al. Say ICU MEDICAL: 2nd Amended Suit Over IV Saline Solution Dismissed IDEAL IMAGE: Smith Suit Moved From Circuit Ct. to E.D. Missouri JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: City of Providence Sues over Xyrem Monopoly JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending JONES FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Declines Petition for Rehearing JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Watson Settlement Still Pending JONES FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Bland Suit KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline LA GLADYS RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Esquivel Claims LABORATORY CORP: Bermejo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California LEGOLAND: Faces Class Action in California Over Unpaid Refunds LEVY PREMIUM: Peskett Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Suite Attendants LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Faces Class Action Over Protest Response MDL 2938: Juanich v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated MDL 2938: Naughton v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated MGP INGREDIENTS: Suits Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Ongoing MH SUB I: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Bindman Suit NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Morris Seeks OT Pay for Psychometricians NAVIENT CORP: Manetta et al Allege Improper Student Loan Servicing NEW YORK: Court Files Redacted Confidential Information in Grottano NOIA RESIDENTIAL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff Nurses NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks Reopening of Bars ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Paid $135,000 Mootness Fee ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Seeks to Appeal Ruling in SEPTA Litigation OSHKOSH CORP: 401(K) Plan Participant Files Class Action PINNACLE BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Claims PLAID LLC: Illegally Collects Bank Login Data, Mitchell Alleges PROASSURANCE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline PROASSURANCE CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Born & Chauhan Seek to Certify Class PSLA LLC: Roldan and Moore Seek Proper Wage Pay for Entertainers QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Underway RANCHO RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Veras Claims RYDER SYSTEM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline SEA LEGS: Alinikoff Seeks Wages for Work Performed as Bartender SEATTLE, WA: Violates Property Rights, Hunters Capital Claims SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Kiddie Academy Seeks Payment for COVID Losses SK ENERGY: Poe Valley Alleges Price-Fixing of Gasoline SMASHBOX BEAUTY: Sued by Hockey for Misclassifying Employees SOCIETY INSURANCE: Denies Coverage of COVID Losses, 726 West Says T-MOBILE USA: Herrera Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. TERMINIX INT'L: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone & Email Ads TERRY YORK: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Wayman Suit Claims TIVITY HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit to Begin May 2021 TRUIST BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Alleges TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Pederson Suit TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending UNITED STATES OIL: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund Suit Ongoing USANA HEALTH: Lacasse Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California USC: Kerendian Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, St. Clair Claims VALEANT PHARMA: $1.21-Bil. Deal Recommended for Final Approval VERDE ENERGY: Abbate Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Electricity Rates WALMART INC: McKnight-Nero Balks at Prejudiced ID of Customers WATERS OF NORTH LITTLE: Underpays Nurses, Ellis Alleges WLP EXECUTIVE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid WOODBRIDGE VISTA: Thompson Rogers Issues Class Action Proceeding WWE: Responds to Saudi Arabia Incident Class Action ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Employers Suit Over Illegal VCDs Moved to D.N.J. [*] City of Lethbridge Explores Opioid Crisis Class Action [*] Two Debt Collection Companies Avert TCPA Class Action ********* ADVANCED MARKETING: Daschbach Sues Over Telemarketing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ RICHARD DASCHBACH and ELCINDA PERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADVANCED MARKETING & PROCESSING, INC. d/b/a PROTECT MY CAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00706 (D.N.H., June 15, 2020), alleges that PMC conducts a wide-scale telemarketing scheme that features the placement of autodialed calls and text messages to consumers nationwide in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Unfortunately for consumers, PMC casts its marketing net too wide, according to the complaint. That is, in an attempt to promote its businesses and to generate leads for its extended auto warranty products, the Defendant conducted (and continues to conduct) a national telemarketing campaign that features the repeated making of unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones, including wireless phones, while utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without consent. PMC is an auto warranty company that claims to sell consumers extended auto warranty plans.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: V. Richards Ward, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF V. RICHARDS WARD, JR., PLLC 39 North Main Street, Unit D-3 P.O. Box 1117 Wolfeboro, NH 03894 Telephone: (603) 569-9222 E-mail: Rick@VRWardLaw.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0676 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Gorie Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, MADELINE GORIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC F/K/A AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01387 (N.D. Ohio, June 24, 2020) challenges Defendant's alleged unlawful employment and pay practices and policies in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant between August 2019 and February 2020 as a warehouse worker. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and other similarly situated warehouse workers were classified by Defendant as non-exempt-employees and were not provided with bona fide meal periods. Allegedly, Defendant denied Plaintiff and other similarly situated Warehouse Workers significant amount of overtime compensation for meal periods during which they performed work. Moreover, Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate records of all of the unpaid work performed by their employees, including Plaintiff. Amazon.com Services LLC f/k/a Amazon.com Services, Inc. operates warehouses fulfillment centers throughout Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Blvd. Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 Emails: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com ANTHEM COMPANIES: Canaday Appeals W.D. Tenn. Ruling to 6th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Laura Canaday filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled LAURA CANADAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01084, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an employment-related class action complaint, which has been filed against The Anthem Companies, Inc., for alleged violation of the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Laura Canaday, who was hired as a utilization management review nurse since approximately June 2017 to the present, routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime compensation, according to the complaint. In addition, Anthem has allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve records with respect to each of its employees sufficient to determine their wages, hours, and other conditions and practice of employment. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Laura Canaday, Case No. 20-504, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner LAURA CANADAY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW 333 Washington Avenue, N., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 927-2969 E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com - and - William Benjamin Ryan, Esq. 1545 Union Avenue Memphis, TN 38104 Telephone: (901) 278-1004 - and - Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: srey@nka.com Defendant-Respondent THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC., is represented by: Brett Christopher Bartlett, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-1500 E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com AQ TEXTILES: Faces Adam Product Liability Suit in North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AQ TEXTILES LLC, et al. The case is captioned as ELIZABETH ADAM and REBECCA FOLEY individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AQ TEXTILES LLC and CREATIVE TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-00520-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C., June 11, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs. The lawsuit involves contract product liability issues. AQ Textiles was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of home furnishings and housewares. Creative Textile operates as a manufacturer and supplier of textiles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 west Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: scott@wbmllp.com BAUDAX BIO: Class Action Against Recro Pharma Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Baudax Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit against Recro Pharma, Inc. is ongoing. On August 2019, Recro Pharma, Inc. announced its plans to separate its acute care business from its contract manufacturing and development segment (CDMO) business through a pro rata distribution of the company's common stock to shareholders of Recro. As a part of the Separation, Recro transferred the assets, liabilities and operations of its acute care segment to the company, pursuant to the terms of a Separation Agreement. On November 21, 2019, the distribution date, each Recro shareholder received one share of the company's common stock for every two and one-half shares of Recro common stock held of record at the close of business on November 15, 2019, the record date for the Distribution. Prior to November 21, 2019, all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of the company were owned by Recro Pharma, Inc. On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the Securities Litigation, was filed against Recro and certain of Recro's officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by Recro concerning the new drug application (NDA) for ANJESO. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but included new allegations and named additional officers as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, Recro filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice. On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss as to this complaint. In connection with the Separation, the Company accepted assignment by Recro of all of Recro's obligations in connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify Recro for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. The Company has recorded a liability equal to the estimated fair value of the indemnification to Recro related to this Securities Litigation. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Baudax said, "At this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the Company." Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes innovative products for acute care settings. The Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania. BENIHANA INC: Rosales Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SALVADOR ROSALES, on behalf of himself, on behalf of others similarly situated and the general public v. BENIHANA, INC., BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-582696 (Filed Feb. 4, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 12, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-03903-LB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, and failure to provide rest periods in violation of the California Labor Code. Benihana, Inc., owns and licenses restaurants in the Benihana and Benihana Grill chain of Japanese dinnerhouses.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Constance E. Norton, Esq. Chad D. Greeson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: cnorton@littler.com cgreeson@littler.com BOYCE HYDRO: 60 Residents Join Mid-Michigan Flooding Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- ClickOnDetroit reports that as many as 60 residents have joined a class-action lawsuit against the owners of the dams that failed and caused catastrophic flooding in mid-Michigan. There's a lot of finger pointing as residents join a class-action lawsuit against the dam owners and the state. They claim this all could have been prevented. Tom and Linda owned a home in Lake Wixom. They showed Local 4 what's left of their dream home. "We moved up here because we wanted to be by the lake (where) we grew up as kids," Tom said. Married 31 years, it was the home they bought so grandchildren could visit and play on the lake in the summer. They were renovating it, but now the lake is gone and their home is ruined. "We just took the camper out this morning, so now we are living in there," Tom said. "It was a mess. It was heartbreaking. It was bad to see everything floating." They're not sure if they'll have the money to rebuild. "We are not in a flood zone, either, so we couldn't get flood insurance, and so banks don't want to give you a loan if you have been flooded, so it is just a big mess," Linda said. "They failed each of these homeowners," said attorney Bob Lantzy, of Buckfire & Buckfire. Lantzy's law firm is representing more than 60 families in the class-action lawsuit against dam owner Boyce Hydro. "For years, the defendants were aware that the Edenville and Sanford dams were structurally unsound, yet they failed to take action," court documents allege. "Our biggest issue is when the state and federal government allow private companies, you know, to operate and maintain a dam system that could potentially harm and have such a devastating effects on so many people," Lantzy said. Residents have also filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, claiming both "had knowledge and ample warning of the problems with the Edenville Dam and owed the plaintiff a duty to anticipate the failure of the dam, as well as the consequences of such failure, and to act accordingly to avoid subjecting plaintiffs to property damage and destruction." "We expect that all of them are going to be responsible and take care of business, as they should, and we see a lot of failures on all sides, and we intend to hold those responsible accountable," Lantzy said. Robert and Cindy Long stood inside what's left of Alex's Railside Restaurant -- their business for the past 18 years in downtown Sanford. "We have people texting us (that) we had eight feet of water in the restaurant," Robert Long said. "We have worked 10, 12, 14 hours a day to survive this place, and then we found out that this was all destroyed and gone, and the insurance company said, 'Sorry, can't help you.'" They said their building needs to be gutted. "You know what, we are very fortunate this is just material," Robert Long said. "It can all be rebuilt. But the problem is at our age, who starts over with a mortgage like this again?" They worry about their 24 employees and everyone affected by the floods. "It just -- it could have been prevented," Cindy Long said. "It could have been prevented not only for us, but I'm angry for the people who have lost everything. We still have our home. We have our health. We have our family." "Somebody has to be responsible for this," Tom said. "I don't know if it is Boyce or the state. I mean, there has been so much stuff, involvement with the state and dropping the levels and raising the levels. It is just very confusing." Tom said they plan to rebuild if they can get enough money. The lawsuit looks to hold Boyce Hydro negligent and liable for damages, including medical expenses, property damage and property value. Local 4 reached out to Boyce Hydro for comment on the lawsuit, but did not receive a response. The separate lawsuit against the state seeks damages. Local 4 reached out to the DNR and EGLE. EGLE officials said they cannot comment on pending litigation. [GN] BRANCH BANKING: Quintana Appeals Consumer Suit Ruling to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Lorenzo Quintana filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled Lorenzo Quintana v. Branch Banking and Trust, Case No. 1:18-cv-00748-WO-JLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina at Greensboro. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as Lorenzo Quintana v. Branch Banking and Trust, Case No. 20-1679, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Opening Brief and Appendix is due on July 29, 2020; and -- Response Brief is due on August 28, 2020.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LORENZO QUINTANA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott Crissman Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: scott@whitfieldbryson.com Defendant-Appellee BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY is represented by: Brent Fancher Powell, Esq. WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 1 West 4th Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 728-7023 E-mail: brent.powell@wbd-us.com BURDICK PAINTING: Faces Hernandez Labor Suit Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID HERNANDEZ, as a Representative of the State of California and on behalf of all similarly aggrieved employees v. BURDICK PAINTING, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20CV367255 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 11, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay all wages, including minimum and overtime wages, and failing provide all meal and rest periods or provide compensation in lieu. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as non-exempt hourly painter from November 2018 to May 15, 2019. Burdick is a painting contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: 562 590-5550 Facsimile: 562 590-8400 E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net CALIFORNIA BAPTIST: Lopez Seeks Refund of School Fees ----------------------------------------------------- BETHANY LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case 5:20-cv-01249-CBM-SHK (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2020) alleges that the Defendant refuses to refund tuition fees to the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the complaint, the Defendant closed campus and prohibited in-person on-campus activities. Although the Defendant offered some level of academic instruction via online classes, the Plaintiff and members of the putative Class were deprived of the benefits of on-campus learning as set forth more fully above. The value of any degree issued on the basis of online classes will be diminished for the rest of the Plaintiff's lives. To date, the Defendant has failed and continues to fail to refund any portion of the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' Spring 2020 semester tuition payment. The Defendant has failed and continues to fail to adequately and properly refund the Plaintiff and the putative Class members' fees for on-campus services which the Defendant is no longer providing as previously agreed upon. California Baptist University (Cal Baptist or CBU) is a private, Christian university in Riverside, California. Founded in 1950 as California Baptist College, it is affiliated with the California Southern Baptist Convention, an organization affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com CANADA: RCMP Class Action Members Likely to Reach at Least 1,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Blake, writing for Cabin Radio, reports that a lawyer says a proposed $600-million class action lawsuit alleging RCMP discrimination against Indigenous people in the North will likely gain at least 1,000 members. Steven Cooper -- of Cooper Regel, one of the firms behind the proposed action -- said about 50 people have reached out as potential class members so far. That includes representatives in Hay River and Tuktoyaktuk in the NWT and Gjoa Haven in Nunavut. Representative plaintiffs act on behalf of other class members and work with lawyers to ensure their interests are represented and pursued. All of the potential members have shared stories claiming harassment and inappropriate and excessive use of force at the hands of RCMP "simply because they're not white," Cooper said. "You've got kids walking down the street in a small northern community being basically harassed, ultimately arrested for nothing other than doing what they're legally entitled to do," he said. "Can you imagine walking down the street, not doing anything wrong -- maybe you've had a beer, maybe you haven't, maybe you stumbled, maybe you didn't – but just going about your business and then being harassed by the RCMP?" Cooper Regel and Koskie Minsky LLP launched the proposed class action against the Attorney General of Canada in December 2018, claiming negligence, discrimination, and a violation of Charter rights and freedoms. Cooper said the lawsuit is currently in the pre-certification stage. By the end of June, lawyers involved will be cross-examining affidavits. Joe David Nasogaluak, a teen in Tuktoyaktuk, is the lead plaintiff. According to the statement of claim, Nasogaluak was 15 in November 2017 when he was stopped and questioned by RCMP while riding his snowmobile with others. Officers allegedly pushed Nasogaluak to the ground without provocation, then beat, choked, punched, and tasered the teen, and called him a "stupid f***ing Native" and a "Native punk kid" before dragging him into an RCMP vehicle. RCMP told CBC North in 2017 they were investigating the incident but claimed a taser was never used. The allegations outlined in the claim have not been proven in court. Cooper said growing up in the North and practising law as a criminal defence lawyer for eight years, he witnessed and heard similar stories. He moved to the NWT when he was eight years old, in 1971, and left in 1998. Cooper said it's not that these issues are getting worse, but that more incidents are being recorded and brought to the public's attention. He pointed to an incident in Kinngait, Nunavut, caught on film earlier this month. The video shows an apparently intoxicated man being knocked to the ground by the open door of an RCMP truck before five officers arrest the man. That incident is under investigation. 'Class actions like this are about systems' "The RCMP, a storied institution, has been flawed in its manifestation for many years, probably from its outset," Cooper said. These cases point to a pattern of systemic racism, he said, and the class action can help hold the RCMP accountable and force the institution to reform. "Class actions are rarely about individuals. Class actions like this are about systems," Cooper said. "This isn't a claim saying every RCMP officer is bad or even the majority, but rather they're operating in a system which is bad, which tolerates and in some cases even encourages bad behaviour." Cooper noted this claim focuses on the North as RCMP are the only policing authority in the territories. While RCMP also operate in the provinces, those jurisdictions have provincial and municipal police forces. Cooper expects to expand the claim to the south in future. "This is sort-of a test market," he said. RCMP have 'so much more to do' Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said systemic racism is an issue in police forces across Canada during a news conference in Ottawa, following protests across the world against racism and police brutality. RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki issued a statement agreeing that systemic racism exists among her employees. "We now have the opportunity to lead positive change on this critical issue," Lucki said in that statement. "It is time to double down on these efforts--there is so much more to do. There is no one answer, no single solution, no one approach." At a news conference in Yellowknife on June 12, Chief Superintendent Jamie Zettler -- who leads NWT RCMP -- echoed Lucki's observation that racism is part of every institution, RCMP included. However, he stopped short of stating systemic racism existed in the RCMP. Zettler claimed the "overwhelming" majority of interactions between RCMP officers and community members in the NWT have been positive, but added there will be cases where "people feel that they have been mistreated." "Those are the ones that we need to understand and have another lens on," he said. "It is clear that we must continue to develop and advance those relationships. Racism and discrimination is not acceptable in society, or in policing." Zettler said RCMP in the NWT are "working to combat racism and discrimination" and have recruitment programs focused on northern Indigenous people, alongside anti-bias and community cultural orientation training. He encouraged anyone with concerns about racism and discrimination in policing to bring them forward. "As a Northwest Territories policing jurisdiction, we are committed to working to enhance trust between the RCMP and the communities we serve," he said. Those who believe they may be a class member are asked to contact Cooper Regel at 1-800-994-7477 or info@cooperregel.ca. Phone calls may go to voicemail as staff are working remotely during the pandemic. [GN] CANADIAN HOCKEY: Former Players' Class Action Settled ----------------------------------------------------- James McCarthy, writing for NNSL, reports that there is a great debate about whether major junior hockey players should be treated as either student athletes or employees of their organization. The case could be made either way but a few past junior players decided to take the issue to court in 2014 to argue that they should be treated as employees with an hourly wage and all the benefits accorded under provincial law. That court case ended up being settled last month with the Canadian Hockey League (CHL) and its three member leagues--Western Hockey League (WHL), Ontario Hockey League (OHL) and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL)--agreeing to pay $30 million to thousands of former players who played between 2012 and 2018. How much each player will receive all depends on where they played, when they played and for how long. The settlement gives the defendants, the leagues in this case, a full release from any further class-action suits regarding employment status for players. Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers in Toronto was one of the lead attorneys in the case and said the settlement was a fair one in the end. "We think it was fair because the (provincial) governments capped the claims by exempting players from employment standards legislation," he said. According to Charney, between 3,000 and 3,500 former players are eligible to be part of the action with approximately 800 signed on as of June 15. "We do not know the amount (for each player)," he said. "It will depend on the number who submit claims and how many seasons they played." It should be noted that only those players who played for Canadian teams are eligible to take part; those who played with American teams in the CHL such as the Portland Winterhawks in the WHL and Flint Firebirds in the OHL are exempt from the settlement. There are a handful of players from the NWT who got the chance to ply their trade in the Western Hockey League over the years and who are eligible to be part of the action, Tye Hand being among them. Tye Hand played two seasons with the Regina Pats of the Western Hockey League between 2012 and 2014. Under the terms of a $30 million settlement reached between the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues -- which includes the Western Hockey League -- and a group of former players, Hand would be eligible to receive a portion of it based on his time in the league. He's not joining the action, he said. photo courtesy of Regina Pats Tye Hand played two seasons with the Regina Pats of the Western Hockey League between 2012 and 2014. Under the terms of a $30 million settlement reached between the Canadian Hockey League, its three member leagues -- which includes the Western Hockey League -- and a group of former players, Hand would be eligible to receive a portion of it based on his time in the league. He's not joining the action, he said. Originally drafted by the Everett Silvertips in 2010, Hand would be traded to the Regina Pats in 2012 and went on to play two seasons with the team. Those two seasons were sandwiched between two seasons in the Alberta Junior Hockey League split between the Drumheller Dragons and Calgary Canucks. Hand said he will "absolutely not" sign on to the class-action because as he sees it, he got everything he needed as soon as he signed his player agreement. "I was presented with my contract and it guaranteed me free school, free gear – everything was paid for by the team," he said. "I didn't pay for groceries, I didn't pay rent, the teams give you gas money or flights to come to training camp as well as going home for Christmas and when the season is done. I don't need any money to make up for all I received." The CHL provides players with post-secondary tuition if they played in one of the leagues with the first year guaranteed once a player signs with a team. Another year is guaranteed to a player for every season they suit up for at least one game with a club. There was also stipend money Hand said players received. "I got $125 every two weeks, which was enough to fill up my car or get whatever I needed outside of hockey," he said. "I don't agree with the notion that junior hockey teams are making tons of money because it's junior hockey. You go to a Calgary Hitmen game, you're paying $25 to get in and you're sitting five rows from the glass. You don't get rich off of that." Sam Berg and Lukas Walter, two of the players who filed the original suit, stated in a press release on May 15, the date the settlement was agreed to, that they were proud of what the lawsuits and settlement achieved and that millions of dollars will be given to players who need it. Hand said he doesn't doubt that there are players who could use the money. "I can't speak to the specific financial situation of others but there are probably lots of people who don't have jobs right now because of the whole Covid-19 deal," he said. "'I'm not going to tell those who sign on that they don't deserve the money and I won't think any less of them for doing so. All I'm saying is I got what I wanted out of junior hockey." He also said while his experience was a positive one, that may not have been the case for others. "There may have been some organizations that were different from the ones I played with," he said. "They may have felt like objects where they played but I was a part of two organizations where I was treated just like the top guys, even though I wasn't a top guy. I was treated like a person all the way through. I don't think there was anything that they could have said to me that would have made me change my mind (about signing on)." [GN] CASA LUIS CORP: Underpays Waiters, Barron et al. Claim ------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDRIA JANET BARRON; and SERGIO JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CASA LUIS CORP.; JOSE LUIS ESTEVES; and DELIA ARIAS, Defendants, Case 2:20-cv-02713 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters. Casa Luis Corp. owned and operated the "Casa Luis" restaurant located at New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil H. Greenberg, Esq. Keith E. Williams, Esq. NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 4242 Merrick Road Massapequa, NY11758 Telephone: (516) 228.5100 E-mail: nhglaw@nhglaw.com keith@nhglaw.com CASPER SLEEP: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020 (the "IPO"). Casper investors have until August 18, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for $12 per share. On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98% increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9 million (a 60% increase year over year). Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price. The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) that Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) that Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) that as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) that as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. If you purchased Casper securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 18, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Casper securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact 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. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] CASPER SLEEP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper" or the "Company") (NYSE: CSPR) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or around February 7, 2020 (the "IPO"). Casper investors have until August 18, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Casper investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. In February 2020, the Company completed its initial public offering ("IPO"), in which it sold 8.35 million shares of common stock for $12 per share. On April 21, 2020, Casper announced that it was decreasing the size of its global operations and sales team, as well as completely winding down its European operations, amounting to a loss of 21% of its workforce. The Company also stated that Gregory Macfarlane had resigned from his positions as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer. On May 12, 2020, the Company announced its first quarter 2020 financial results, reporting a net loss of $34.5 million (a 98% increase year over year) and an adjusted EBITDA loss of $22.9 million (a 60% increase year over year). Since the IPO, Casper's share price has traded as low as $6.37 per share, or about 47% below the $12 IPO price. The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Casper's profit margins were actually declining, rather than growing; (2) that Casper was changing an important distribution partner, costing it 130 basis points of gross margin in the first quarter of 2020 alone; (3) that Casper was holding a glut of old and outdated mattress inventory that it was selling at steeply discounted clearance prices, further impairing the Company's profitability; (4) that Casper was suffering accelerating losses, further placing its ability to achieve positive cash flows and profitability out of reach; (5) that Casper's core operations were not profitable, but were causing the Company to suffer over $40 million in negative cash flows during the first quarter of 2020 alone and doubling its quarterly net loss year over year; (6) that as a result of the foregoing, Casper's ability to achieve profitability, implement its growth initiatives, and expand internationally had been misrepresented in the Offering Documents, as the Company needed to shutter its European operations, halt all international expansion, jettison over one fifth of its global corporate workforce, and significantly curtail new store openings in order to avoid an imminent cash and liquidity crisis, let alone achieve positive operating cash flows; and (7) that as a result of the foregoing, Casper's revenue growth rate was not sustainable and had not positioned the Company to achieve profitability. If you purchased Casper securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] CENTRELINK: Gov't May Have to Pay Interest on Unlawful Debts ------------------------------------------------------------ Luke Henriques-Gomes and Australian Associated Press reports that the robodebt debacle's financial cost looks set to grow after a judge suggested it was likely the federal government would have to pay interest on unlawful debts issued to hundreds of thousands welfare recipients over nearly five years. And in an escalation of the class action brought by Gordon Legal, lawyers for the firm raised the prospect of a misfeasance in public office claim that could force ministers to front court over the saga. At a case management hearing, the federal court Justice Bernard Murphy told lawyers for the government it would be "obligated to pay interest" on the debts it agreed to repay. "You're being sued for the debt plus interest," Murphy said while questioning the government's lawyer Michael Hodge QC. "You're acknowledging the debts raised illegally . . . how do you avoid interest?" In a massive backdown aimed at reducing the damage from the class action, the government last month promised to issue $720m worth of refunds to 373,000 people for 470,000 debts unlawfully raised using the flawed "income averaging" of tax office pay data since July 2015. But Gordon Legal has vowed to push ahead with the class action, seeking interest and damages as part of "unjust enrichment" and negligence claims. The group, represented by Bernie Quinn QC, said there was also uncertainty surrounding when refunds might be issued and a court ruling could decide this. Quinn also flagged plans to argue claims of misfeasance in public office alongside arguments for damages. Hodge said setting aside the debts and repaying the money was not the same as admitting there had been unjust enrichment. The government is also resisting potential arguments that debts raised as part of the scheme but not based on income averaging -- usually because the welfare recipients provided payslips or bank statements after they were accused of receiving an overpayment -- should also be repaid. If that claim were successful, it would increase the scope of the unlawful debts from 470,000 to about 600,000. Already the government is looking at further financial pain on top of the $720m it has agreed to refund. Guardian Australia understands the interest payments on the refunds would cost about $90m and the refund process -- due to run for 12 months from July -- will cost $200m, though the government says it will be carried out using Services Australia resources. Murphy also ordered the government to update its defence to match public announcements. In its formal defence to the court, the commonwealth has only admitted debts wholly identified through robodebt are invalid. In public statements it admitted debts both wholly and partly identified through robodebt were invalid. The government has come under pressure from Labor and the Greens after arguing it had no common law duty of care to welfare recipients, in an attempt to avoid paying damages. Guardian Australia has reported that the government has privately conceded it will have to pay interest. It paid interest to a Melbourne woman who brought a successful robodebt challenge with the help of Victoria Legal Aid in November. When it was settling its response to the class action in February, Services Australia told government ministers privately that "proactively" refunding debts would "reduce the incentive for the applicants to persist with the class action, and minimise the commonwealth's potential liability for interest and legal costs". The prime minister, Scott Morrison, issued an apology in parliament after Gordon Legal promised that it would not use the comments in court. The case looks set to go to trial over three weeks, starting in September. [GN] CENVEO WORLDWIDE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Summers Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SUMMERS, an individual v. CENVEO WORLDWIDE LIMITED, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22549 (June 15, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly aggrieved employees, seeking remedies and civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to timely pay wages each pay period; failure to pay regular and minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to seperately compensate rest and recovery periods; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to provide meal periods; and failure to reimburse business expenses in violation of the Labor Code. From February 4, 2019, to May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff was employed by Cenveo and primarily worked for Cenveo in the State of California. Cenveo is in the business of management and distribution of print and related offerings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Z. Boren, Esq. Lance M. Williams, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2021 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: sboren@bollaw.com lwilliams@bollaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend the Crago Order Routing Litigation. On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through CS&Co. The lawsuit names CS&Co and the company (CSC) as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and are vigorously contesting the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The case is captioned, ROBERT CRAGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.). Robert Wolfson and Frank Pino have been appointed Lead Plaintiffs. The Charles Schwab Corporation provides a variety of financial services to individual investors, independent investment managers, retirement plans, and institutions. The Company provides its clients with securities brokerage, banking, and related financial services through offices in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the United Kingdom. The company is based in San Francisco, California. CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Chernysh Sues over 60% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------------- SERGEY CHERNYSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; RICHARD L. EBERLY; and GAIL S. PAGE, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02706 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2020) is a securities fraud action brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Chembio during the period April 1, 2020 through June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented that its Dual Path Platform (DPP) technology platform COVID-19 serological point-of-care (POC) test for the detection of IgM and IgG antibodies aided in determining current or past exposure to the COVID-19 virus, that its test provides high sensitivity and specificity, and was 100% accurate. Test sensitivity is the ability of a test to correctly identify those with the disease (true positive rate), whereas test specificity is the ability of the test to correctly identify those without the disease (true negative rate). Based on the Defendants representations, during the Class Period the Company's stock increased from a closing price on March 31, 2020, the day before the Class Period begins, of $5.12 per share, to a Class Period high of $15.54 per share on April 24, 2020. The Defendants took advantage of Chembio's inflated stock price. On May 11, 2020, the Company reported that it closed the public offering of approximately 2.6 million shares of Chembio stock at $11.75 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $30.8 million. On June 16, 2020, after the market closed, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a press release disclosing that it had revoked the Company's Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") for the Company's DPP COVID-19 Igm/IgG System. As a result of disclosure of the FDA letter, Chembio shares declined from a closing price on June 16, 2020 of $9.93 per share to close at $3.89 per share on June 17, 2020, a decline of $6.04 per share, or over 60%, on heavier than usual volume of over 25 million shares. Chembio Diagnostics Inc develops diagnostic solutions. The Company offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness, dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Jason A. Uris, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14 th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. ("Chembio" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CEMI) for violations of Section 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 1, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 17, 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. Chembio's COVID-19 antibody test was among the first to be granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA in April. The FDA revoked the Company's EUA on June 17, 2020, based on concerns of test accuracy. According to the FDA, the "benefits no longer outweigh its risks" and that "it is not reasonable to believe that the test may be effective" because it "generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device." 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 Chembio, 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] CHICKPEA AT 14TH ST: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Pacheco ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gabriel Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has conditionally certified settlement class and approved collective action in the case, JORGE PACHECO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHICKPEA AT 14TH STREET INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 Civ. 251 (GWG), (S.D. N.Y.). The parties in the matter, consisting of named plaintiff Jorge Pacheco and defendants Chickpea at 14th Street Inc.; Chickpea at LIC, Inc.; Chickpea at Penn, Inc.; Chickpea International Inc.; Chickpea on 6th Avenue Inc.; C P at William St. Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; C P at 45th St. Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; C P at Lexington Avenue Inc.; C P at Madison Avenue Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; Alimade LLC d/b/a Chickpea; SANAA Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Chickpea; Akbarali Himani; and Ronald Siegel have provided to the Court a proposed settlement of the litigation. On February 7, 2020, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court containing an amended proposed Settlement Agreement and amended Class Notice. The Court directed the parties to further amend the Class Notice and to provide additional information regarding the parties' efforts to locate Class Members and the requested administration fees. The parties submitted two letters to the Court in response. On March 4, 2020, the Court instructed the parties to submit an executed copy of the revised Settlement Agreement and a revised Proposed Order, which the parties provided on March 18, 2020. Upon deliberation, the Court approves a collective action consisting of the following persons on the ground that they are similarly situated: All hourly employees who were employed at Chickpea restaurants located in New York City at any time from January 11, 2012 to October 24, 2019. The Court authorizes the proposed Class Notice to be mailed to potential members of the FLSA collective action, notifying them of the pendency of the FLSA claim, and of their ability to join the lawsuit. The Court also orders that the following class be certified for settlement purposes only pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3): Named Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and all hourly employees who were employed at Chickpea restaurants located in New York City at any time from January 11, 2012 to October 24, 2019. The Court also finds that Class Notice as revised by the Court is sufficient to give the Class Members a full and fair opportunity to consider the parties' proposed settlement and to determine whether to opt out. Named Plaintiff Jorge Pacheco and Opt-In Plaintiffs Salvador Loreto, Sorobabel Sierra, Stephanie Bere, and Shanawaj Ahmed are appointed as representatives of the Class under Rule 23. C.K. Lee, Esq. of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC is appointed as class counsel for the Class ("Class Counsel"). Advanced Litigation Strategies, LLC is appointed as Claims Administrator. The Court schedules a fairness hearing for August 20, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 6B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. At the hearing, the Court will determine whether to grant final certification of the Settlement Class, approval of the FLSA collective action, and approval of the Settlement Agreement and the Plan of Allocation. A full-text copy of the District Court's March 30, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ucyslt from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order on the revision of the Notice in the case is available at https://tinyurl.com/rurkdst from Leagle.com. Jorge Pacheco, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Juan Calderon, Muhamed Lanignan, Shanawaj Ahmed, Sorobabel Sierra & Stephanie Bere, Plaintiffs, represented by C.K. Lee , Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Chickpea at 14th Street Inc., Chickpea at LIC, Inc., Chickpea at Penn Inc., Chickpea International Inc., Chickpea on 6th Avenue Inc., C P At Lexington Avenue Incorporated, doing business as ChickPea, C P At Madison Avenue Incorporated, doing business as ChickPea, Akbarali Himani, Alimade LLC, doing business as ChickPea, C P at William St. Incorporated, doing business as ChickPea, CP at 45th St Incorporated, doing business as ChickPea, Sanaa Enterprises, Inc., doing business as ChickPea & Ronald Siegel, Defendants, represented by Lee Sam Nuwesra , Law Offices of Lee Nuwesra, 60 E 42nd St Ste 1132, New York, NY 10165-1139 COCA-COLA COMPANY: Cantwell et al. Sue Over Deceptive Milk Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- CAROL CANTWELL, JAE JONES, JENNY ROSSANO, DIANA TAIT, MICHELLE INGRODI, CINDY PETERS, DEBRA FRENCH, KAYE MALLORY, CONNIE SANDLER, DAVID ROTHBERG, KARAI HAMILTON, ARNETTA VELEZ, CHRISTINA PARLOW, DEMETRIOS TSIPTSIS, AND TERRI BIRT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY; FAIRLIFE, LLC; MIKE MCCLOSKEY; SUE MCCLOSKEY; AND, SELECT MILK PRODUCERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03739 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer trade laws, false advertising laws, unfair trade practices laws, and consumer protection laws in the U.S. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, allege that the Defendants are engaged in deceptive and false marketing and advertising of milk products under the brand name "fa!rlife." The Defendants explicitly represent to consumers, inter alia, that animals associated with generating the milk used in the products are treated in a more humane, comfortable, and compassionate manner that exceeds standard industry practices—in short, that they are given extraordinary care. The Defendants' representations about humane animal care, the high quality of milk produced and used, the traceability of milk used, and the environmental sustainability of farming practices associated with the products were material to consumers who purchased fairlife products. But despite making these explicit animal welfare promises, they were false, deceptive and misleading. Defendants did not live up to those promises as several undercover investigations revealed widespread abuse at farms that sourced fairlife product, including at Defendants' flagship farm at Fair Oaks. The Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased or would have paid substantially less for fairlife products if they had known that Defendants did not live up to their promises. The Coca-Cola Company is a multinational beverage corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. fairlife, LLC is a manufacturer and marketer of milk products with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. Select Milk Producers, Inc. is a wholesale dairy producer headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. George V. Granade, Esq. Maurice L. Hudson, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com ggranade@reesellp.com mhudson@reesellp.com - and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam Prom, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com aprom@dicellolevitt.com - and – Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com jbourne@pswlaw.com COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 5, 2020, Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sustained in part a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against an information technology services company and certain of its current and former executives. In re Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Sec. Lit., No. 16-6509 (D.N.J. June 5, 2020). Plaintiffs alleged that the company made misrepresentations promoting the advantages of its facilities in India by failing to disclose an alleged scheme to bribe government officials to secure permits necessary to operate one such facility. After portions of their prior complaint were dismissed by the late Judge Walls without prejudice, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the case was transferred to Judge Salas. Relying in part on the prior decision as law of the case, the Court held that plaintiffs' allegations, which were drawn primarily from a government investigation, sufficiently alleged actionable misstatements and scienter. With respect to alleged misstatements and omissions, the Court rejected the company's argument that the government investigation showed that the alleged bribes were not paid for the licensing but instead, were for other types of permits. Deeming this a "distinction without a difference," the Court concluded that plaintiffs' allegations concerning permits that were "necessary for the construction and operation of" the facility were sufficiently broad to account for different types of licenses or permits. Slip op. at 23. In addition, relying on the prior judge's determination as law of the case, the Court concluded that alleged misrepresentations that there were no incidents of corruption, as well as regarding financial earnings releases, were actionable as allegedly misleading because they did not mention the bribery scheme. Id. at 25–28. Importantly, the Court held that the complaint failed to establish, pursuant to Rule 10b-5(b), that the company's former general counsel who signed the 8-K attaching earnings releases was the "maker" of certain statements in the earnings releases attached to SEC filings -- i.e., that he had "ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it." Id. at 30 (citing Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 142 (2011)). The Court emphasized that plaintiffs did not allege that the executive was quoted in any of the earnings releases, that his name or contact information appeared on them, or that he was responsible for reviewing them prior to issuance. Id. at 31–33. Nevertheless, the Court held that allegations against the executive, who was ultimately criminally indicted for his role in the alleged bribery scheme, regarding the earnings releases were sufficient to allege "scheme liability" under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) in this specific context of this action and his alleged role, for which he was criminally charged, with respect to the underlying conduct that pre-dated the releases. The Court explained that the Supreme Court's decision in Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094 (2019), determined that sending emails to potential investors that the sender knew to be false could give rise to "scheme liability," even though the sender was not a "maker" of the statements because the emails were authored and approved by his supervisor. Id. at 34–35. And, although Lorenzo does not require that a plaintiff necessarily allege deceptive conduct beyond the alleged misstatement itself, the Court rejected the company's suggestion that Lorenzo precluded liability where the dissemination of a misstatement is preceded by additional allegedly deceptive conduct. Id. at 36. The Court thus explained that it "cannot simply turn a blind eye" to allegations that the executive actually participated in devising the bribery scheme. Id. at 36–37. Similarly, the Court concluded that these allegations of scienter collectively provided a strong inference that "at minimum" the executive acted recklessly in participating in the bribery scheme and failing to report it. Id. at 48–49. Finally, the Court engaged in an analysis of the theory of corporate scienter, under which -- where the concept is accepted—scienter may be imputed to a corporate defendant based on allegations regarding the mental state of officers or employees. Id. at 49. The Court explained that, while the Third Circuit has not yet taken a position on whether to allow the corporate scienter theory or how to define it, other Circuit Courts of Appeal have taken three differing approaches. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged corporate scienter under each of those approaches. Id. at 52. In particular, the company argued that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to establish corporate scienter under what the Court referred to as the "narrow approach" of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, which requires allegations that establish a strong inference of scienter as to an individual official responsible for the misstatement, rather than general allegations going to the collective knowledge of various officers and employees. Id. at 52. The Court found, contrary to detailed arguments from the company, that this standard applied not only for individuals who make or issue a misstatement, but also for those who merely "furnish" information for inclusion in the statement. Id. The Court concluded that plaintiffs sufficiently established a strong inference of scienter that could be imputed to the company, based on allegations that one executive authorized bribe payments and falsified documents in connection with those payments that were used to generate the allegedly misleading earnings releases, and that two executives provided false certifications regarding the company's anti-corruption compliance practices that could have plausibly been furnished in connection with the company's reporting no incidents of corruption. Id. at 56–58. Based on the same reasoning, the Court determined that plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient under the "broad approach" to corporate scienter articulated by the Second and Seventh Circuits, which requires only "a strong inference that someone whose intent could be imputed to the corporation acted with the requisite scienter." Id. at 59–60. While the company argued that the allegations amounted to "isolated misconduct" and "immaterial payments" that were not indicative of widespread fraud, the Court observed that allegations of widespread fraud were unnecessary where "named senior officers are alleged to have had the requisite scienter." Id. at 60. Moreover, the Court stated that the "collective allegations" -- including statements by a confidential witness who allegedly observed numerous examples of falsified records and reported them to other managers -- "reflect a scheme which plausibly extended beyond those named senior management." Id. at 61–64. Similarly, the Court held that the scienter allegations were sufficient under the "middle approach" articulated by Sixth Circuit, which permits scienter to be imputed based on allegations that a "high managerial agent or member of the board of directors . . . ratified, recklessly disregarded, or tolerated the misrepresentation after its utterance or issuance." Id. at 67. The Court concluded that allegations that multiple top officials participated in bribery were sufficient under the "middle approach." Id. at 68–69. Prior to the filing of the currently operative complaint, the late Judge Walls had certified the question of the proper standard for corporate scienter to the Third Circuit. Id. at 6. Once the new complaint was filed, the Third Circuit dismissed the appeal without prejudice to interlocutory review being sought again. Id. at 7. Judge Salas' opinion suggests in a footnote that interlocutory review may not necessarily be warranted to the extent the standard for corporate scienter was not dispositive under the Court's analysis but invites defendants to file a motion requesting certification for interlocutory review. Id. at 52 n.15. In re Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. Sec. Lit. [GN] CONDUENT COMMERCIAL: Underpays Employees, Ricard-Tessier et al Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLAUS RICARD-TESSIER, JOELLE RICARD-TESSIER, DENISE VASSILATOS and ADRIANNE WARD, and all similarly situated individuals, known and unknown Plaintiffs, v. CONDUENT COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00354 (W.D.N.C., June 24, 2020) is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, known and unknown, arising from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, state contract laws, common law claims of unjust enrichment, as well as the state wage and hour laws. Defendant employed Plaintiffs as hourly at-home call center employees, called "Remote Associates," who were responsible for providing customer service to Defendant's clientele. According to the complaint, one of those abuses, which is at issue in this case, is the employer's refusal to pay for work "from the beginning of the first principal activity of the workday to the end of the last principal activity of the workday." Specifically, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees for their time spent booting up their computers, logging into required computer networks and software applications, and reviewing work-related e-mails and other information prior to the start of their shift. Defendant also failed to compensate Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees for mid-shift, off-the-clock work attributed to technical problems with the computers, networks, programs/applications, and/or phones. Conduent Commercial Solutions, LLC is a Texas-headquartered provider of diversified business process services for businesses and governments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Mills, Esq. BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A. 2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 560 Raleigh, NC 27608 Telephone: (919) 782-1441 E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq. Elaina S. Bailey, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com CORVIAS GROUP: Military Members Allege Breach of Rental Agreements ------------------------------------------------------------------ SSG. SHANE PAGE, SPC SPENSER GANSKE, and SFC CHRISTOPHER M. WILKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN PICERNE; CORVIAS GROUP, LLC, d/b/a CORVIAS; BRAGG COMMUNITIES, LLC; BRAGG-PICERNE PARTNERS, LLC; CORVIAS MILITARY LIVING, LLC; CORVIAS MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, LLC; CORVIAS MANAGEMENT-ARMY, LLC; and HEATHER FULLER, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00336-D (E.D.N.C., June 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract, negligence, third-party beneficiary of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the North Carolina Residential Rental Agreements Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act. The Plaintiffs seek to represent similarly situated members of the United States Army who leased military housing from Corvias at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They allege that the Defendants breached their rental agreements and duties to the Plaintiffs and Class members. The Defendants' violations include, but not limited to, failing to communicate truthful information to the Plaintiffs regarding known defects in military housing; failing to respond promptly, effectively, and truthfully to concerns about the condition of the premises expressed to them by the Plaintiffs; failing to faithfully observe and comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, rules, regulations, orders, ordinances, and other governmental standards and requirements; failing to maintain leased houses in good order and in a decent, safe and sanitary condition; failing to inspect houses for suitability based on environmental, health, and safety considerations prior to leasing; failing to provide lead hazard-free living and working environment for residents; and failing to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members sustained actual damages including, without limitation, overpayment of rent given the fact the premises were not worth the amount the Plaintiffs paid in rent to Defendants. Corvias Group, LLC, d/b/a Corvias, is a company that offers property development, construction, and management services for military and higher education institutions, with its principal place of business in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. Bragg Communities, LLC is a provider of housing and other services for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Its principal place of business is located at Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Corvias Management-Army, LLC is a property development, construction, and management services company with its principal place of business at Fort Bragg, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Bragg-Picerne Partners, LLC is a provider of housing and other services for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with its principal place of business in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. Corvias Military Living, LLC, formerly known as Picerne Military Housing, LLC, is a provider of housing and other services for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with its principal place of business in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. Corvias Construction, LLC is a provider of housing and other services for military servicemen at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. It is a successor by merger to Picerne Construction/FBG, LLC, and Corvias Military Construction, LLC. Its principal place of business is located in East Greenwich, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Anthony Penry, Esq. Neil A. Riemann, Esq. PENRY | RIEMANN PLLC 2245 Gateway Access Point, Suite 203 Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone: (919) 792-3891 E-mail: andy.penry@penryriemann.com neil.riemann@penryriemann.com - and – Robert S. Metro, Esq. BAUER & METRO, PC Post Office Box 7965 Hilton Head, SC 29938 Telephone: (843) 842-5297 E-mail: Rmetro@bauerandmetro.com CYTOMX THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 23 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. PRA Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proassurance-corporation-loss-form?prid=7501&wire=1 HALL Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hallmark-financial-services-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1 CTMX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * ProAssurance Corporation (PRA) PRA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 26, 2019 - May 7, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/proassurance-corporation-loss-form?prid=7501&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, ProAssurance Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL) HALL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 5, 2019 - March 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hallmark-financial-services-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked effective internal controls over accounting and financial reporting related to reserves for unpaid losses; (2) the Company improperly accounted for reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; (3) as a result, Hallmark Financial would be forced to report a $63.8 million loss development for prior underwriting years; (4) as a result, Hallmark Financial would exit from its Binding Primary Commercial Auto business; and (5) 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. CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. (CTMX) CTMX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 17, 2018 - May 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cytomx-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7501&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] DEPAUL UNIVERSITY: Oyoque Seeks Fee Refunds Over COVID-19 Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALHIX OYOQUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DEPAUL UNIVERSITY and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DEPAUL UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03431 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of all people, who paid tuition and fees for the Winter and Spring 2020 academic quarters at DePaul or the Spring 2020 academic semester at DePaul's School of Law, and who, because of the Defendants' response to COVID-19 pandemic, lost the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services or which their fees were paid, without having their tuition and fees refunded to them. On March 11, 2020, the Defendants, via DePaul President A. Gabriel Esteban, Ph.D., announced that, because of the global COVID-19 pandemic, effective immediately, DePaul would suspend all in-person final exams for the Winter 2020 Quarter, cancel or postpone all University-sponsored events, and, "whenever possible," deliver all classes remotely for the entirety of the Spring 2020 Quarter and, for students of DePaul's School of Law, the remainder of the Spring 2020 Semester. The Plaintiff contends that she and the putative class are entitled to a refund of tuition and fees for in-person educational services, facilities, access and/or opportunities that Defendants have not provided. Even if the Defendants did not have a choice in cancelling in-person classes, they nevertheless have improperly retained funds for services they are not providing, the Plaintiff insists. Ms. Oyoque was an undergraduate student at DePaul pursuing a bachelor's degree in Health Science. Ms. Oyoque is currently an alumnus of DePaul, having completed her undergraduate degree requirements and graduated at the end of the Spring 2020 Quarter. DePaul is a private, Roman Catholic university with a total enrollment of over 22,000 undergraduate and graduate students across ten colleges and schools, making it the largest Catholic university in the United States. DePaul is governed by Defendant Board of Trustees of DePaul University. The Board has approximately 35 voting members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, 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 ndeckant@bursor.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Drive, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com EMORY UNIVERSITY: Schultz Seeks Tuition Refunds Due to COVID-19 --------------------------------------------------------------- MARC SCHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EMORY UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02661-MLB (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2020) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all people who paid tuition and fees for in-person undergraduate or graduate programs for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Emory, and who have been unable to receive the benefit of the education for which they paid, and/or the services for which their fees were paid, due to Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic. According to the complaint, Defendant has failed to apportion the burden in an equitable manner or consistent with its obligations as an educational institution while the effects of the COVID-19 crisis are shared by all individuals and institutions across the country. Defendant has retained all tuition, fees, and related payments for the Spring 2020 semester, however, all or substantially all classes have been exclusively held online since on or about March 23, 2020. As a result of the closure of Defendant's facilities, Plaintiff has not received the educational services, access to facilities, and/or related opportunities for which Plaintiff and the putative class contracted and paid. Defendant has nonetheless retained the full tuition, fees and other payments made by Plaintiff and the putative class. The complaint further states that Defendant is not entitled, by either contract or equitable principles, to pass the entire cost of its COVID-19 related closure to its students and their families. Plaintiff and the putative class are entitled to a partial refund of the tuition, fees, and other related payments for in-person educational services, access to facilities, and/or related opportunities that Defendant did not provide. Plaintiff Marc Schultz is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. Plaintiff's child was enrolled as a full-time student for the Spring 2020 academic semester at Defendant Emory University. Emory University is a private educational institution that offers undergraduate and graduate programs across twelve schools and colleges in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Ave. Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com - and - Edward A. Coleman, Esq. Lewis Saul, Esq. LEWIS SAUL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 29 Howard Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 376-8450 E-mail: ecoleman@lewissaul.com lsaul@lewissaul.com ENDO INT'L: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of August 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased Endo International plc (NASDAQ: ENDP) securities between August 8, 2017 and June 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 18, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On June 10, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo ("Governor Cuomo") announced that the New York Department of Financial Services ("DFS") had filed administrative charges against Endo in connection with its role in the opioid crisis, alleging that Endo fraudulently misrepresented the safety and efficacy of its opioid drugs while minimizing the risk of addiction and other ill effects. That same day, DFS issued its own press release specifically announcing that it "has filed charges and initiated administrative proceedings against Endo . . . and its subsidiaries, [EHS], [EPI], and [PPCI]" in connection with "DFS' ongoing investigation into the entities that created and perpetuated the opioid crisis"; that "[t]he DFS' statement of charges alleges that, like other opioid Manufactures, Endo . . . [k]nowingly furthered a false narrative to legitimize opioids as appropriate for broad treatment of pain by downplaying their long-known addictive nature and risks"; and that Endo and its subsidiaries "[m]isrepresented the safety and efficacy of opioids, without legitimate scientific substantiation," and "[d]eployed a large sales force to target healthcare providers directly with these misrepresentations." On this news, Endo's Ordinary share price fell $0.66 per share, or 14.63%, to close at $3.85 per share on June 10, 2020. The complaint, filed on June 19, 2020, 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: (i) the full scope of Endo's and/or its subsidiaries' contributions to the opioid crisis, including, but not limited to, their opioid products' disproportionately negative impact on New York, one of the most populous states in the U.S., as well as the fraud that defendants perpetrated on the New York insurance market; (ii) part of that contribution to the crisis included Endo publishing and disseminating false information to health care providers regarding the risks and benefits of opioids; (iii) that the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to subject Endo and/or its subsidiaries to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement, as well as significant financial and/or reputational harm, particularly with respect to New York; and (iv) that, as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Endo securities during the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Easq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com [GN] ENDO INT'L: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on June 23 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Endo International plc ("Endo" or "the Company") 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 August 8, 2017 and June 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 18, 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. Endo and its subsidiaries played a far larger role in the opioid crisis than it represented to the market. The Company published false information directed towards healthcare providers about the risks and benefits of its opioid drugs. The facts opened the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny, particularly by the state of New York. 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 Endo, 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. [GN] ERIE INSURANCE: Pub Drops COVID-19 Loss Coverage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Zhang, writing for Law360, reports that one of Pennsylvania's first proposed class actions filed against an insurer seeking COVID-19 loss coverage has been dropped by a pub, a few weeks after Erie Insurance Exchange moved the suit to federal court. HTR Restaurants Inc., doing business as Sieb's Pub in Ross Township, Pennsylvania, said on June 15 that it decided to "voluntarily dismiss" its class action lawsuit against Erie over the insurer's wrongfully denying coverage of its property and revenue loss from state-mandated closures amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The class suit was originally filed in Pennsylvania state court in April, and Erie removed the case to Pennsylvania federal court in early June. The parties were notified that Erie would have until June 25 to respond to Sieb's complaint. Sieb's said in the complaint that it has suffered substantial business loss because of possible COVID-19 contamination and the state-mandated closure of nonessential businesses. The bar shut its doors following Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf 's stay-at-home order in late March. The pub said that though some restaurants were given exceptions to stay open for delivery and takeout services, it had to close and furlough employees. In the suit, Sieb's claimed that its commercial general liability policy with Erie does not have a virus exclusion and should cover losses from the government's coronavirus response. It argued that the state-mandated closures trigger "civil authority" coverage in its policy with Erie. The pub was seeking to represent similarly situated Pennsylvania businesses with Erie policies that had suffered losses because of the pandemic and been denied coverage. The bar requested a declaration from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas that COVID-19-related losses were covered under their insurance policies and asked for an injunction blocking Erie from further denials. An Erie spokesperson said in early June that business interruption insurance isn't generally intended to cover events like the coronavirus crisis, adding that the policies usually cover financial losses when a business cannot function due to physical damage to a commercial property. Attorneys representing Sieb's Pub declined to comment on the decision. Representatives from Erie did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Sieb's Pub is represented by Jonathan Shub and Kevin Laukaitis of Kohn Swift & Graf PC. Erie is represented by Tara L. Maczuzak of DiBella Geer McAllister & Best PC. The case is HTR Restaurants Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, case number 2:20-cv-00819, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN] EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Locicero FCRA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GreenSky, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Francisca D. Locicero, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GreenSky, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; INTRUST Bank, N.A., a national bank; and EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No. 0:20-cv-61155-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 11, 2020). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act regarding consumer credit. GreenSky operates as a consumer finance firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Murphy, Esq. 1212 SE 2nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-8660 Facsimile: 763-8607 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com FIFTH THIRD: Early Access Cash Advance Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851), remains pending. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate (APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million. Under the Court's scheduling order, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due April 20, 2020. No trial date has been set. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIRST HORIZON: Settlement Reached in GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-01704-JSR. FHN was one of multiple defendants in a consolidated putative class action suit: In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:19-cv-01704-JSR (U.S. District Court S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs claim that defendants conspired to fix secondary market prices of government-sponsored enterprise ("GSE") bonds from 2009 through 2015. During the third quarter of 2019, FHN reached a class settlement with the plaintiffs, subject to court approval, without admitting liability. Though still subject to court approval, the settlement has been paid and therefore is not reflected in established liabilities. First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") began as a community bank chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40 largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States in terms of asset size. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee. FIRST RELIANCE: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, 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 Reliance Bank and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02208-BHH (D.S.C., June 11, 2020), alleges that First Reliance refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan agent fees out of the compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans. The lawsuit seeks compensations from First Reliance for services the Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress enacted the CARES Act. A signature piece of this landmark legislation is the SBA's PPP. The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicant's agent. 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. First Reliance operates as a bank. The Bank provides deposits, loans, mortgage, debit and credit cards, and insurance services.[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. Tanenbaum, 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 FIRST TRANSIT: Cuellar Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CUELLAR, individually and on behalf of others persons similarly situated v. FIRST TRANSIT, INC., an active Ohio Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2020-01125049-CU-OE-CXC (Filed Jan. 17, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 15, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:20-cv-01075 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide paid rest periods, failure to pay wages, failure to timely pay wages at termination/separation, and failure to provide accurate wage statements in violation of the California Labor Code. First Transit is a United States-based subsidiary of FirstGroup. Headquartered at 600 Vine Street, in Cincinnati, Ohio, First Transit operates over 300 locations, carrying more than 350 million passengers annually throughout the United States in 39 states, Puerto Rico, Panama, India and four Canadian provinces.[BN] The Defendant First Transit is represented by: David J. Dow, esq. Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101-3577 Telephone: 619 232 0441 Facsimile: 619 232 4302 E-mail: ddow@littler.com blmccarthy@littler.com GARFIELD BEACH: Naderi Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KAVEH NADERI, MAGDY SEDRA, MERAT FEROKHINA, CHRISTINA BARTLEY, NICHOLAS SCHIRATO, ERIK VALENZUELA, MICHAEL A. GROSENHEIDER, and SCOTT GLEASON, individually, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C., a California limited liability company; LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV07772 (Filed March 16, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 12, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05287 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert claims against the Defendants for failure to reimburse employee expenses; unfair competition; unlawful non-payment of overtime compensation; and failure to compensate for all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code. Garfield Beach is a medical retail store. Longs Drug distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. Joseph V. Marra III, Esq. Megan McDonough, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: 213 612 2500 Facsimile: 213 612 2501 E-mail: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com joseph.marra@morganlewis.com megan.mcdonough@morganlewis.com GRAND CANYON: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 13 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Groupon, Inc. (GRPN) Class Period: 11/4/2019 - 2/18/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 29, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-grpn/ Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (LOPE) Class Period: 1/5/2018 - 1/27/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 13, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-lope/ Enphase Energy, Inc. (ENPH) Class Period: 2/26/2019 - 6/17/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-enph/ ProAssurance Corporation (PRA) Class Period: 4/26/2019 - 5/7/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 17, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-pra/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] GULFPORT ENERGY: Faces Woodley Securities Suit in SDNY ------------------------------------------------------ Gulfport Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company has been named as a defendant in a securities class action suit before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York initiated by Robert F. Woodley. In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action against the company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R. Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief that may be deemed just and proper. Gulfport Energy Corporation an independent natural gas-weighted exploration and production company focused on the exploration, acquisition and production of natural gas, crude oil and natural gas liquids ("NGL") in the United States with primary focus in the Appalachia and Mid-Continent basins. The company is based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. HAM FARMS: Supplemental Consent Protective Order Entered in Lopez ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ADAN LOPEZ, FRANCISCO MENDEZ, EZEQUIEL ABURTO-HERNANDEZ, ELENA RAFAEL-PERALTA, JOSE PABLO SANDOVAL-MONTALVO, JOSE JIMENEZ-OLIVAREZ, ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-MENDEZ FRANCISCO PALACIOS-HERNANDEZ, HUMBERTO DE LA LUZ ARMENTA, and ISAIAS ESPINOSA-VAZQUEZ, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. HAM FARMS, LLC f/k/a HAM FARMS, INC., HAM PRODUCE, LLC f/k/a HAM PRODUCE COMPANY, INC., ISMAEL PACHECO, PACHECO CONTRACTORS, INC., HUGO MARTINEZ, GUTIERREZ HARVESTING, LLC, ROBERTO TORRES-LOPEZ, 5 G HARVESTING, LLC, RODRIGO GUTIERREZ-TAPIA, SR., CIRILA GARCIA-PINEDA, BLADIMIR MORENO, and LOS VILLATOROS HARVESTING, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-00329-D (E.D. N.C.), Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, has entered the Parties' Supplemental Consent Protective Order regarding the Class Notice and the selection of a Third Party Claims Administrator ("TPCA"). The Parties to the Supplemental Consent Protective Order -- the Plaintiffs; Ham Farms and Ham Produce; and Gutierrez Harvesting, 5 G Harvesting, and Rodrigo Gutierrez-Tapia, Sr. -- have settled all claims in the case through Mediated Settlement Agreements but continue to negotiate the terms and conditions of the Class Notice and the selection of a TPCA. To further facilitate those negotiations, the Parties have agreed to the entry of the Supplemental Order regarding the Class Notice and the selection of a TPCA. The Parties acknowledge the Consent Protective Order Regarding Early Mediation (hereinafter "Consent Protective Order"), entered on May 1, 2018, and the Parties agree they continue to be bound by the provisions set forth in the Consent Protective Order, except as otherwise stated. The Parties have agreed to the entry of the Supplemental Order to further protect against disclosure of documents to be exchanged or any use of the information. On review, it appears to Judge Numbers there is good cause to enter the Supplemental Order to protect certain documents, and accordingly, the Judge ordered the Parties to continue to be governed by the terms and conditions of the Consent Protective Order, except as otherwise supplemented. A full-text copy of the District Court's April 21, 2020 Order is available at https://is.gd/dECXDy from Leagle.com. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Dahlke Sues over 18% Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD A. DAHLKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEBRON TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; ANYUAN SUN; and CHANGJUAN LIANG, Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-04746 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2020) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (ii) the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis. On June 3, 2020, Grizzly Research presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the Company' s share price fell $8.26, or nearly 37%, to close at $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $2.51, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. develops and manufactures valves and pipe fittings. The Company offers pipeline design, installation, construction, and ongoing maintenance services, as well as holistic solution services. Hebron Technology serves the pharmaceuticals, biology, food, and beverage industries in Shanghai, Wenzhou, and Taiwan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. THE SCHALL FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-301-3335 Facsimile: 877-590-0482 E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com HEBRON TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. (NASDAQ: HEBT) ("Hebron" or the "Company") of the August 10, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you invested in Hebron stock or options between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here:www.faruqilaw.com/HEBT. There is no cost or obligation to you. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll freeat 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail torgonnello@faruqilaw.com. CONTACT: FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq. rgonnello@faruqilaw.com Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased Hebron securities between April 24, 2020 and June 3, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case, Clynes v. Hebron Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 1:20-cv-04420 was filed on August 10, 2020. The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) that many of Hebron's acquisitions, including Beijing Hengpu and Nami Holding (Cayman) Co., Ltd., involved undisclosed related parties; (2) that the Company's disclosure controls regarding related party transactions was ineffective; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On June 3, 2020, Siegfried Eggert, CEO of Grizzly Research, presented a report alleging that Hebron is an "insider enrichment scheme without economic basis," citing questionable transactions including an undisclosed related party transaction for nearly $26 million. On this news, the Company's stock price fell from $22.55 per share on June 2, 2020 to $14.29 per share on June 3, 2020: a $8.26 or 36.63% drop. The stock declined a further $2.51 the following day, closing at $11.78 per share on June 4, 2020. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Hebron's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/58258 [GN] HORIZONS ETFS: Affleck Greene Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Annie (Qurrat-ul-ain) Tayyab, Esq., of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that a class action brought on behalf of investors in risky securities discloses a sufficient cause of action to be certified. The decision may open the gates to more securities class actions in Ontario. It also serves as a cautionary tale for fund developers and managers to consider when crafting disclosure documents under the Securities Act. Wright v Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc. deals with a proposed class action brought on behalf of investors in a complex derivative-based exchange-traded fund (ETF) developed and managed by Horizons. The ETF was available for retail investors to purchase on stock exchanges through authorized brokers and dealers. The disclosure documents stated that the ETF was "highly speculative" and "involv[ed] a high degree of risk." On February 5, 2018, the value of the ETF collapsed, eliminating nearly 90% of the assets the fund had accumulated over several years. Investors in the ETF lost almost their entire investment, totaling tens of millions of dollars. The proposed representative plaintiff, Mr. Wright, lost about $210,000 when he sold his units the next day. Mr. Wright brought an action on behalf of himself and other investors who lost money in the crash. In June 2019, the certification judge refused to certify the action as a class action, holding that Mr. Wright's allegations disclosed no reasonable cause of action (Wright v Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc., 2019 ONSC 3827). Recently, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the decision and remitted the case back to the certification judge to determine if the remaining certification criteria are met (Wright v Horizons ETFS Management (Canada) Inc., 2020 ONCA 337). Mr. Wright advanced two main causes of action: the tort of negligent performance of a service, and negligent misrepresentation in a prospectus under the Securities Act. Both of these were risky, as neither has been used to successfully sue on losses in speculative investments in the past. Mr. Wright was ultimately rewarded by the Court of Appeal, which held that both causes of action were viable. Common Law Claim for Negligence Mr. Wright's first argument was that the managers of the ETF breached their common law duty of care by designing and managing the ETF in a way that was excessively complex and contained fundamental design flaws. The Court of Appeal held that this case was analogous to cases of negligent performance of a service. And, even if it was not, a new duty of care could reasonably be established in this case. The main issue was the scope of Horizon's duties to investors. Though the motion judge held that Horizons did not undertake responsibility for any gains or losses investors might realize in purchasing ETF units, the Court of Appeal disagreed. The Court of Appeal held that Horizons undertook to act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the investment fund, and exercise the degree of care and diligence that a prudent person would exercise in the circumstances as provided for in the Securities Act (see section 116 of the Securities Act). Mr. Wright's statement of claim alleged that the ETF was doomed to fail, and was not suitable for any investors because there was no disclosure of this risk. The Court of Appeal held that this could, if proven at trial, constitute a breach of Horizons' duty of care or its duty under the Securities Act to adequately manage the ETF. Statutory Claim for Negligent Misrepresentation in a Prospectus Mr. Wright's second argument was that the developers and managers of the ETF misrepresented in the prospectus how the ETF operated and the nature of the risks involved, constituting a breach of section 130 of the Securities Act. That section permits investors to start a legal action where a prospectus contains a misrepresentation. In this case, when investors purchased units of the ETF, they did not know whether the particular units they were buying were new units that had never been sold before - i.e. they were in the primary market and section 130 of the Securities Act governed -- or were units their broker/dealer bought from others on the stock exchange -- i.e. they were in the secondary market and therefore a different section, section 138.3, of the Securities Act governed. For plaintiffs, there are clear advantages to bringing a claim for misrepresentations in the primary market rather than the secondary market. Under section 138.3 of the Securities Act, damages for misrepresentations to secondary market purchasers are capped. Further, an action for secondary market misrepresentation requires investors to get leave (permission) of the court to move forward with an action. The threshold to obtain leave to proceed can be a significant hurdle: the plaintiff must show that the case has a reasonable chance of success at trial and do so prior to any documentary or oral discovery of the proposed defendants. The Court of Appeal held that it was appropriate to distinguish between the two types of units rather than continue with an action that tries to artificially conflate the two. The Court held that any action relating to units that had never been sold before must be brought under section 130 of the Securities Act. Denying holders of such units the right to proceed under section 130 would unfairly deny them the advantages of that section of the legislation. At the same time, investors who bought ETF units that had previously been purchased by other investors are required to bring an action under section 138.3 of the Securities Act, which deals with secondary market purchasers. Practical Considerations for Fund Developers and Managers It is important to remember what this decision does not mean. This was a certification motion, where the question to be answered was whether Mr. Wright's allegations of wrongdoing are doomed to fail. The Court of Appeal held they are not, and that Mr. Wright should be given a chance to go to trial to try to prove his claim. This does not mean that Horizons has been or will be held liable for a breach of its duty of care to investors, or for a breach of the Securities Act. But practically speaking, many class actions never go to trial. The risks and costs of a common issues trial are high for defendants, and most class actions settle before a common issues trial is held. Therefore, the practical reality is that certification is an important litmus test for a class proceeding. Both of the causes of action advanced by Mr. Wright were novel in the context of high-risk securities that took a turn for the worst. The investors' appetite for risk paid off in the context of the litigation; they can at least now ask the court to certify the action as a class action. This decision's impact may be wide-ranging and include an increase in securities class actions being brought across Canada, as well as a more conservative approach by fund developers and managers when they create both investment products for Canadian retail investors and the disclosure documents accompanying those products. [GN] HOST INT'L: Kennedy et al. Seek Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DUANE KENNEDY and CHELSEA KENNEDY, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-00747 (W.D. Tex., June 24, 2020) arises from Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant at Defendant's restaurants in the San Antonio airport – Duane as a cook from November 2018 until the present and Chelsea as a server from 2013 until February 2020. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, including off-the-clock work. However, Defendant did not pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate for all the hours worked in excess of 40. Additionally, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs a proper minimum wage due to the unlawful kickbacks associated with parking passes, and for hours spent doing non-tipped work. Host International, Inc. provides prepared meals, food and beverage, and merchandise at airports, on toll roads, restaurants and other travel and entertainment venues. [BN] The Plaintiffs are 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 I AND D GLATT 2: Underpays Assistants, Erazo et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------- VICENTE ERAZO and JOSE NERY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I AND D GLATT 2 INC. (D/B/A I AND D GLATT); and DAVID YIZHAKY, Defendants, Case 0:20-cv-02748 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as supermarket assistant. I and D Glatt 2 Inc. sells beef, poultry, fish, deli meats and prepared dishes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 ICU MEDICAL: 2nd Amended Suit Over IV Saline Solution Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- ICU Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the intravenous saline solutions class action suit. On February 3, 2017, the company completed the acquisition of the HIS business from Pfizer. This litigation is the subject of a claim for indemnification against us by Pfizer and a cross-claim for indemnification against Pfizer by us under the HIS stock and asset purchase agreement. Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Pfizer, Inc. subsidiaries, Hospira, Inc., Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to the intravenous saline solutions part of the HIS business. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. Plaintiffs allege that U.S. manufacturer defendants conspired together to restrict output and artificially fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. On July 5, 2018, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the operative complaint for failing to state a valid antitrust claim, but allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. On September 6, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding new allegations in support of their conspiracy claims and adding ICU as a defendant. All defendants filed a motion to dismiss this second amended complaint and on April 3, 2020, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The District Court concluded that it would be futile to permit plaintiffs to amend their complaint again, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs may file an appeal or other type of challenge to the District Court's order. ICU Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells medical devices used in vascular therapy, critical care, and oncology applications worldwide. ICU Medical, Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in San Clemente, California. IDEAL IMAGE: Smith Suit Moved From Circuit Ct. to E.D. Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as AMIE SMITH, DIANE DRAUS, TINA KRAUS, JULIE SPINDOLA, KRISTINE DESCHLER, AND SUSAN STONE v. IDEAL IMAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION d/b/a IDEAL IMAGE and ANGIE LANASA, Case No. 20SL-CC02511 (Filed May 6, 2020), was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 12, 2020. The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00761 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose out of the Plaintiffs' and the class members' termination of their employment from Ideal Image necessitated by the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Plaintiffs claim Ideal Image violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Ideal Image provides personal care services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Bradley W. Tharpe, Esq. R. Lance Witcher, Esq. Sarah J. Kuehnel, Esq. Bradley W. Tharpe, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: 314 802 3935 Facsimile: 314 802 3936 E-mail: lance.witcher@ogletree.com sarah.kuehnel@ogletree.com brad.tharpe@ogletree.com JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: City of Providence Sues over Xyrem Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS PLC; ROXANE LABORATORIES, INC.; WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.; HIKMA LABS INC.; HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; and HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS PLC, Defendants, Case 5:20-cv-04064 (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2020) is a civil antitrust action arising out of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct that delayed generic competition in the U.S. and its territories for Xyrem, a prescription drug product approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in the U.S. for treatment of cataplexy and daytime sleepiness in patients with narcolepsy. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' anticompetitive behavior prevented, delayed, and restricted competition in the market for Xyrem and AB-rated generic versions ("generic version") thereof in the United States. As a result, no generic version of Xyrem has entered the market and full generic competition will not occur until at least December 31, 2025 at the earliest. Jazz settled its litigation with Roxane in April 2017. Contemporaneously with the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Jazz and Roxane entered into a license agreement (the "License Agreement") and an authorized generic agreement (the "AG Agreement"), which are not available publicly. The Roxane Settlement included a promise from Roxane not to market its generic version of Xyrem until July 1, 2023. In consideration for its promise to delay launching its generic product, Roxane received, inter alia, (i) the exclusive right to sell an authorized generic (AG) between January 1, 2023 and July 1, 2023; (ii) a license to sell its own generic as of July 1, 2023; and (iii) a promise from Jazz not to grant additional licenses for other generic manufacturers to market their own generic products until December 31, 2025. On April 18, 2016, Jazz settled its litigation with Wockhardt. As part of the settlement, Jazz granted Wockhardt the right to manufacture, market, and sell its generic starting December 31, 2025. On May 9, 2016, Jazz settled its litigation with Ranbaxy. As part of the settlement, Jazz granted Ranbaxy the right to manufacture, market, and sell its generic starting December 31, 2025. On January 9, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Par. As part of the settlement Jazz granted Par the right to sell an AG starting July 1, 2023, and the right to manufacture, market, and sell their own generic starting December 31, 2025. On March 30, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Watson. As part of the settlement, Jazz granted Watson the right to manufacture, market, and sell its generic starting December 31, 2025. On about June 4, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Mallinckrodt. As part of the settlement, Jazz granted Mallinckrodt the right to manufacture, market, and sell its generic starting December 31, 2025. On June 12, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Lupin. As part of the settlement Jazz granted Lupin the right to sell an AG starting July 1, 2023, and the right to manufacture, market, and sell their own generic starting December 31, 2025. On October 15, 2018, Jazz settled its litigation with Amneal. As part of the settlement Jazz granted Amneal the right to sell an AG starting July 1, 2023, and the right to manufacture, market, and sell their own generic starting December 31, 2025. As a result of the Settlement Agreements, Jazz will maintain complete control of the sodium oxybate market in the United States until at least July 1, 2023, and full generic competition will not occur until at least December 31, 2025. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company is a specialty biopharmaceutical company focused on improving patients' lives by identifying, developing and commercializing innovative products that address unmet medical needs. The Company has a diverse portfolio of products in the areas of narcolepsy, oncology, pain and psychiatry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. WESTERMAN LAW CORP. 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 685 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (310) 698-7450 E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com - and - Michael M. Buchman, Esq. Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 577-0050 Facsimile: (212) 577-0054 E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com mclerkin@motleyrice.com JONES FINANCIAL: Appeal in Anderson Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the appeal in the putative class action suit entitled, Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., is still pending. On March 30, 2018, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated certain affiliated entities and individuals as defendants, withdrew the claims under the Securities Act, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations. In response to the amended complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In the plaintiffs' opposition brief filed on September 9, 2019, the plaintiffs withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims. On November 12, 2019 the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and entered judgment in favor of defendants. On December 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the district court's order dismissing the case. Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals deny the allegations and intend to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit on appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Declines Petition for Rehearing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that an objector's petition for rehearing on a court of appeals decision affirming a lower court order approving the settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled, McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., has been denied. On August 19, 2016, the company (JFC), Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) and certain other defendants were named in a putative class action lawsuit (McDonald v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by a participant in the Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the "Retirement Plan"). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Retirement Plan participants and seeks declaratory and equitable relief and monetary damages on behalf of the Retirement Plan. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the McDonald lawsuit which was granted in part dismissing the claim against JFC and denied in part as to all other defendants on January 26, 2017. On November 11, 2016, a substantially similar lawsuit (Schultz, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) was filed in the same court. The plaintiffs consolidated the two lawsuits by adding the Schultz plaintiffs to the McDonald case, and the Schultz action was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed their first amended consolidated complaint on April 28, 2017. On December 13, 2018, the court entered a preliminary order approving a class action settlement agreement reached among the parties. Following a fairness hearing held on April 18, 2019, the court entered judgment on April 22, 2019 in which it granted final approval of the settlement, effected a full release of claims by the settlement class in favor of the defendants, and dismissed the consolidated lawsuit with prejudice. On June 14, 2019, the lone objector filed an appeal to the judgment approving the settlement. On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied the objector's appeal and affirmed the district court's approval of the class action settlement. On February 6, 2020, the objector petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing, which was denied on March 3, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Approval of Watson Settlement Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the plaintiffs in Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al., are awaiting the court's approval of a proposed class action settlement. On April 25, 2019, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) and the company (JFC) were named as defendants in a putative class action (Watson, et al. v. The Jones Financial Companies L.L.L.P., et al.) filed by two former financial advisors in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did not reimburse financial advisors and financial advisor trainees in California for certain categories of business expenses, which plaintiffs allege violates the California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit seeks damages and restitution as well as attorneys' fees and costs and equitable and injunctive relief. On February 19, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the court's approval of a proposed class action settlement reached by the parties. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. JONES FINANCIAL: Court Narrows Claims in Bland Suit --------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2020, that the court in Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al., dismissed seven of the ten causes of action in an amended complaint. On March 13, 2018, the company (JFC) and Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Edward Jones) were named as defendants in a purported collective and class action lawsuit (Bland, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P, et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by four former financial advisors. The lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as Missouri and Illinois law and alleges that the defendants unlawfully attempted to recoup training costs from departing financial advisors and failed to pay all overtime owed to financial advisor trainees among other claims. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and liquidated damages. On March 19, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims, but permitting the plaintiffs to amend and re-file certain of their claims. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2019. On March 30, 2020 the court partially granted the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed seven of the ten causes of action it purported to state. The court's order eliminated from the case any claims that rely upon the firm's contractual right to recoup training costs as well as related claims for declaratory relief. It also dismissed various state law claims. JFC and Edward Jones deny the allegations in the remaining counts and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P., through its subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., operates as a registered broker-dealer. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. was founded in 1871 and is based in Des Peres, Missouri. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) between June 10, 2015 and March 13, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 10, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kandi investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Kandi class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1873.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 that: (1) certain areas in the Company's previously issued financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the first three quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016 required adjustment; (2) in turn, the Company lacked effective controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result, defendants' positive statements about the Company'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 August 10, 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-1873.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. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LA GLADYS RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Esquivel Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- JERONIMO VICTORIANO ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANTONIO AGUILAR, GLADYS BARSOLAS, AYZA G. BARZOLA and LA GLADYS RESTAURANT INC. (dba. LA GLADYS RESTAURANT) jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 7:20-cv-04857 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as dishwasher and kitchen cook for five and a half years from on or about May 2012 until 2018. According to the complaint, Plaintiff worked approximately 72 hours per week, but he was not paid lawful minimum wage throughout his employment with Defendants. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to: -- provide any wage statements, time sheets, or other documents showing the number of hours Plaintiff worked every week; -- provide Plaintiff a wage notice at the time of hire or at any point thereafter; and -- post notices explaining the minimum wage rights of employees. Antonio Aguilar, Gladys Barsolas, and Ayza G. Barzola were the owners, authorized operators, managers, and agents of the Corporate Defendant. La Gladys Restaunrant Inc. owns and operates La Gladys Restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-203-2417 Email: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com LABORATORY CORP: Bermejo Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE BERMEJO, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DBA LABCORP; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15175 (Filed April 20, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 15, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05337 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts class claims for failure to pay all wages, failure to keep accurate payroll records, and failure to pay wages upon ending employment in violation of the California Labor Code. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LabCorp operates one of the largest clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories.[BN] The Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America is represented by: Christopher J. Kondon, Esq. Saman M. Rejali, Esq. Kate G. Hummel, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310 552 5000 Facsimile: 310 552 5001 E-mail: christopher.kondon@klgates.com saman.rejali@klgates.com kate.hummel@klgates.com LEGOLAND: Faces Class Action in California Over Unpaid Refunds -------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that companies like Legoland are facing a class action lawsuit that says they continued to take customers' money during the coronavirus despite not being able to offer their services. Attorneys Robert Teel and Ronald Marron filed the lawsuit June 8 against Merlin Entertainments Group, Legoland California, Madame Tussauds in Hollywood and San Francisco and San Francisco Dungeon LLC. "Closing of these venues, and cancellation of these events, should have meant that ticketholders were promptly refunded their money -- money that in many cases was much needed for other purposes," the lawsuit says. "But that did not happen . . . Instead, Defendants failed to honor and perform their duties responsibilities, and obligations under their uniform standardized agreements with their customers thereby breaching their contracts, but nonetheless pocketed their customers' money and converted it for their own use." Not refunding this money violated the defendants' own terms and conditions, the lawsuit says. [GN] LEVY PREMIUM: Peskett Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Suite Attendants ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHARON PESKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEVY PREMIUM FOODSERVICE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05694 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and Class members wages for all hours worked; failing to pay them all wages owed due to Defendants' rounding of hours; failing to pay all wages owed at termination; failing to pay them with appropriate paychecks; failing to indemnify them for all necessary expenditures and losses incurred; and failing to provide pay out tipped workers service charges that customers reasonably believed were a gratuity. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a suite attendant at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California. Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership is a restaurant and hospitality company that specializing in providing food and beverage to major entertainment and sports venues and conducts business in California. Compass Group USA, Inc. is a food and support services management company located in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. Lirit A. King, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Facsimile: (805) 270-7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com lking@bradleygrombacher.com LOS ANGELES, CA: LAPD Faces Class Action Over Protest Response -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Chiotakis, writing for KCRW, reports that the Los Angeles Police Department and the LA County Sheriff's Department are at the center of criticism for how they handled people protesting racial injustice and police brutality. Protesters and reporters say officers and deputies instigated violent clashes, using unnecessary force and dangerous weapons on peaceful protesters. Police and sheriff's officials say they were targeted by some protesters who were throwing bottles and other objects at them. The LAPD says it has launched more than 50 investigations into possible police misconduct. Now the National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles has filed a federal class action lawsuit against the LAPD, saying the department used excessive force and violated the civil rights of protesters. [GN] MDL 2938: Juanich v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JANET JUANICH, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., GOODBABY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LIMITED, Case No. 2:20-cv-03443 (Filed April 14, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on June 15, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11132-DJC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff sues the Defendants for alleged reckless and/or intentional practices of using misleading and deceptive marketing claims and making material statements and misrepresentations concerning the safety of their Big Kid Belt-Positioning Booster seats. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants intentionally designed their marketing with claims that targeted and appealed to consumers, who were concerned with providing their children or grandchildren with a safe and reliable belt-positioning booster seat. However, the Defendants' labels and packaging claims were misleading to consumers due to the reckless and/or intentional use of statements and representations regarding the Big Kid Booster's safety that were unsupported by their own safety tests and marketed for use with children contrary to the recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Juanich case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re: EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020. These actions share common factual questions, and that centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC. In April 2019, the Plaintiff purchased the Evenflo Big Kid Sport High Back Booster Car Seat from Walmart in Santa Maria, California, to use with her 6-year-old grandchild. The Defendants develop, design, manufacture, label, distribute, market, advertise, and sell baby products such as car seats, strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Krista K. Freier, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com kkfreier@locklaw.com - and - Jon W. Borderud, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JON BORDERUD 7 West Figueroa Street, 3rd Floor Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone (310) 621-7004 E-mail: borderudlaw@cox.net - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPELRUD & WEESE PC 5015 Grand Ridge Drive West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com Defendant Evenflo is represented by: Linda C. Hsu, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 E-mail: linda.hsu@bclplaw.com MDL 2938: Naughton v. Evenflo Co. Over Booster Seats Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as EMILY NAUGHTON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00367 (Filed March 9, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston) on June 15, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-11131-DJC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's marketing of the Booster Seat is deceptive and misleading, as the use of booster seats by children weighing less than 40 pounds is in direct contravention to the safety recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to the detriment of parents and children nationwide. He adds further that there is no federal safety standard or test governing side impact for car seats. Given the absence of any such standard or test, the Defendant created its own test--with no basis in safety or science--and then proceeded to consistently give itself a passing grade and market the Booster Seat as "side impact tested." The Defendant develop, design, manufacture, label, distribute, market, advertise, and sell baby products such as car seats, strollers, safety gates, high chairs, and playards. The Naughton case is being consolidated with MDL 2938, In Re: EVENFLO COMPANY, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2, 2020. These actions share common factual questions, and that centralization in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In its June 2, 2020 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve discovery regarding the design, testing, and marketing of the booster seat, as well as Evenflo's decision to represent the booster seat as safe for children under 40 pounds. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper. The lead case is Case No. 1:20-md-02938-DJC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Johnson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY One Court Street Alton, IL 62002 Telephone: 618-259-2222 Facsimile: 618-259-2251 E-mail: ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Martha Geer, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. Harper Todd Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: 919-600-5035 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com martha@wbmllp.com pat@wbmllp.com harper@wbmllp.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: 865-247-0080 Facsimile: 865-522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com Defendant Evenflo is represented by: Richard P. Cassetta, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN, LLP One Firstar Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101-1693 MGP INGREDIENTS: Suits Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- MGP Ingredients Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend two putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for District of Kansas related to the Company's forecasts of sales of aged whiskey. In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for District of Kansas, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to purse claims on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's Common Stock during certain specified periods (the "Class Periods"). The plaintiffs allege that, the defendant made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's forecasts of sales of aged whiskey, and that, as a result the Company's Common Stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Periods. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these actions. MGP Ingredients Inc. develops and produces natural grain-based products in the United States. The Company is based in Atchison, Kansas. MH SUB I: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Bindman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant MH Sub I, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Boris Bindman v. MH Sub I, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02614-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The lawsuit arises from Mr. Bindman's purchase and use of the Defendant's online lead generation services for attorneys. Mr. Bindman, an attorney, signed up for lead services on a "pay-per-lead" basis. The Plaintiff alleges that soon after submitting an initial deposit and agreeing to an auto-renewal amount, he received unsatisfactory leads. If leads fall within certain criteria (e.g. incorrect contact information, lead is not within the attorney customer's subscribed legal or geographical practice area, etc.), the lead may be deemed deficient. The attorney customer can dispute leads and, if deemed deficient, the attorney will receive a credit from Martindale for the deficient lead. Plaintiff alleges he received deficient leads, timely disputed them, and requested credit, but Martindale systematically rejected his credit requests. The appellate case is captioned as Boris Bindman v. MH Sub I, LLC, Case No. 20-15079, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee BORIS BINDMAN, a California resident, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, is represented by: William Michael Aron, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLAIM M. ARON 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-1768 E-mail: bill@aronlawfirm.com - and - Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 575 Anton Blvd. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 556-1700 E-mail: kgamarnik@foleybezek.com - and - Robert Allen Curtis, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 962-9495 E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com Defendant-Appellant MH SUB I, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, DBA Internet Brands, Inc., is represented by: Ambika Kumar Doran, Esq. Rebecca J. Francis, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8030 E-mail: ambikadoran@dwt.com - and - Wendy Evelyn Giberti, Esq. iGENERAL COUNSEL, PC 9595 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 300-4082 - and - Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6577 E-mail: sanjaynangia@dwt.com NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S: Morris Seeks OT Pay for Psychometricians ---------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE MORRIS, et al, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONWIDE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv—3194 (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2020) is a collective and class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful failure to compensate employees in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Psychometrician from approximately October 17, 2016. According to the complaint, Plaintiff and all others similarly situated Psychometricians regularly worked over 40 hours within a workweek. Consequently on approximately June 16, 2020, Defendant admitted its liability for failing to pay Plaintiff and the Putative Plaintiffs overtime hours and its improper classification of Psychometrician as a non-exempt position and changed its employment practices and policies shortly after the Department of Labor investigation. However, Defendant failed to calculate, as part of Plaintiff's and the Putative Plaintiffs' workweek, the time they spent in performing the pre-appointment and post-appointment tasks, which is often done outside of the time scheduled shift, and for the lunch breaks that were scheduled to perform work with different psychologists, thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate. Nationwide Children's Hospital is one of the largest and most comprehensive pediatric hospitals and research institutes in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jessica R. Doogan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP 250 East Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Emails: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jdoogan@barkanmeizlish.com NAVIENT CORP: Manetta et al Allege Improper Student Loan Servicing ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN MANETTA, SERGIO PEREIRA, ESTHER SYGAL-PEREIRA, MATTHEW MARKOSIAN, NAIMISH BAXI, HARVEY MINANO, SYDNEY PECK, MAHMUD IBRAHIM, and GEORGE AMORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NAVIENT CORPORATION; NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC f/k/a NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. f/k/a SALLIE MAE, INC.; and SLM CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-07712 (D.N.J., June 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and New York Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices by concealing and improperly servicing student loans. These practices include: (1) misallocating payments disproportionately to interest rather than principal; (2) charging inflated minimum monthly payments and applying the excess payment to interest only; (3) applying single loan payments across multiple loans, so as to spread a payment out over multiple loans' principals and interests, rather than one loan's principal and interest; (4) applying single loan payments across multiple loans, so as to spread a payment out over loans with the lower interest rate first, so that more debt accrues on the higher interest loans; (5) capitalizing interest at irregular frequencies and improper times; (6) employing an antiquated, confusing, and misleading online payment system to provide information in order to prevent the Plaintiffs and Subclass members from being able to understand their loan payments and applications; (6) employing misleading monthly billing statements with inaccurate, deceptive, and confusing information; (7) refusing to release cosigners even when release-eligibility criteria should have been met; (8) refusing to provide accurate cosigner release criteria; (9) refusing to provide accurate historical transactional information on student loans to the Plaintiffs and Subclass members; (10) failing to provide the Plaintiffs and Subclass members with a clear, reliable, and consistent way to apply automated online payments and extra payments to specific loans; and (11) promoting a rewards credit card and program, which rewards were never allocated towards reducing the principal due. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' deceptive acts and practices, the Plaintiffs and Subclass members suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, including paying inflated principal, interest, and costs associated with their student loans. Navient Corporation is a publicly-traded Delaware corporation, trading on the NASDAQ stock exchange under ticker symbol NAVI. It operates a servicing and debt collection business with principal place of business located at 123 Justison Street, Suite 300, Wilmington, Delaware. Navient Solutions, LLC, formerly Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly Sallie Mae, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Navient Corporation. SLM Corporation is the owner of student loan servicer Sallie Mae, Inc. based in Newark, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Xavier M. Bailliard, Esq. James Van Splinter, Esq. Joseph Tripodi, Esq. KRANJAC TRIPODI & PARTNERS LLP 30 Wall Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 216-2400 Facsimile: (646) 216-2373 E-mail: xbailliard@ktpllp.com jvansplinter@ktpllp.com jtripodi@ktpllp.com NEW YORK: Court Files Redacted Confidential Information in Grottano ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Order to file a Copy of the Redacted Version Proposed by the City on the Public Docket in the captioned DANA GROTTANO, N.D., A.R. and D.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION COMMISSIONER JOSEPH PONTE, CORRECTION OFFICER YOLANDA CAPERS, CAPTAIN ERICA MAYWEATHER, CORRECTION OFFICER THOMASENA GRAHAM and JOHN and JANE DOE CORRECTION OFFICERS 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-9242 (RMB), (S.D.N.Y.). The parties entered a Settlement Agreement in the class action lawsuit which calls for a payout of up to $4,000 for any person who visited or attempted to visit an inmate housed at a New York City Department of Correction (DOC) facility and who was subject to an invasive search, unless the visitor was arrested for possession of contraband. The City agreed to contribute $12,500,000 to pay the individual awards which at the rate of $4,000 per person would be awarded to approximately 3,000 class members. The parties estimated that $12,500,000 would be sufficient to cover all eligible class members. They included a proviso that the award per class member would be reduced pro rata to compensate all eligible class members. Based largely upon the parties' representations and submissions at a hearing, the Court preliminarily approved the class action settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel informed the Court that the number of claimants already far exceeds anything Class Counsel could have foreseen, and there are still three months left in the claims period. As of that date, more than 10,000 claimants had filed for inclusion in the class. Plaintiffs' counsel stated that based on current numbers "the payout will be less than $1,000 per claimant," compared to the proposed $4,000. The Court concludes that the City's proposal more closely coincides with any meaningful confidentiality concerns under the mediation privilege, while not unduly restricting the public's right to know and transparency in these judicial proceedings. At the same time, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed redactions tend to paint too broadly and that some of the authorities cited by Plaintiff are readily distinguishable. For example, some of Plaintiffs' authorities involve a third-party seeking discovery of other parties' mediation communications or involve the Southern District of New York's Mediation Program confidentiality rules, which do not apply to the parties' private mediations. In any event, the issue of mediation confidentiality in the circumstances presented here is not of great moment. Neither party identifies any prejudice it would face from publicly filing either redacted version of the February 5 Letter. The Court will file a copy of the redacted version proposed by the City on the public docket. A full-text copy of the District Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/qpmkfcm from Leagle.com Dana Grottano, N. D. & D. M., Plaintiffs, represented by Oren Giskan - ogiskan@gslawny.com - Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson & Stewart, LLP, Scott Simpson , Beranbaum Menken LLP, 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, New York 10005 & Raymond Audain , NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 40 Rector St Fl 5, New York, NY 10006-1738 2006 City Of New York & Corr. Commissioner Joseph Ponte, City of New York Department of Correction, Defendants, represented by Angharad Wilson , New York City Law Department, Michael Keith Gertzer , Law Offices of Jennifer Adams, Nelson Leese , New York City Law Department, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law Department, Katherine Jane Weall , New York City Law Department, Kimberly Joyce , New York City Law Department & Peter William Brocker , NYC Law Department. Yolanda Capers, Defendant, represented by Angharad Wilson , New York City Law Department, Nelson Leese , New York City Law Department, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law Department, Katherine Jane Weall , New York City Law Department & Kimberly Joyce , New York City Law Department. Correction Officer Thomasena Graham, Defendant, represented by Angharad Wilson , New York City Law Department, Cynthia Devasia , Koehler & Isaacs, LLP, Nelson Leese , New York City Law Department, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law Department, Katherine Jane Weall , New York City Law Department & Kimberly Joyce , New York City Law Department. Yolanda Capers & Correction Officer Thomasena Graham, Cross Claimants, represented by Cynthia Devasia , Koehler & Isaacs, LLP. City Of New York, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael Keith Gertzer , Law Offices of Jennifer Adams, Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III , The New York City Law Department & Peter William Brocker , NYC Law Department. Captain Erica Mayweather, Cross Claimant, represented by James G. Frankie , Frankie & Gentile, P.C., 1527 Franklin Ave Ste 104, Mineola, NY, 11501-4805 NOIA RESIDENTIAL: Smith Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Staff Nurses --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 20CECG01820 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violating various provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. These violations include: (1) requiring employees to do off-the-clock pre-shift work; (2) failing to provide timely, uninterrupted meal and rest breaks; (3) failing to pay minimum wages for all hours worked; (4) failing to properly calculate all hours worked; (5) failing to furnish accurate wage statements; and (6) failing to properly calculate and pay overtime wages including productivity and/or nondiscretionary bonuses and reimbursement of all necessary incurred business-related expenses. The Plaintiff was employed as a direct care staff nurse at the Defendant's facility in Fresno, California. NOIA Residential Services, Inc. is a corporation that operates an assisted living facility in Fresno, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Jason Rothman, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com Jason@yeremianlaw.com - and – Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com NORTH CAROLINA: Class Action Seeks Reopening of Bars ---------------------------------------------------- Joan C.W. Hoffmannon, writing for Encore, reports that as North Carolina restaurants, breweries, wineries, distilleries, bottle shops, hotel bars, and country club bars gear up for Monday service, a clock ticks away on ncbata.org. The North Carolina Bar and Tavern Association website has been keeping track of how long bars operating with a DZ Mixed Beverage Private Bar license have been closed due to the novel coronavirus. Right now as of June 16, 2020, that count is at 90 days. On Friday, June 5, Governor Roy Cooper vetoed House Bill 536. It would have allowed bars to open with 50% of their capacity outdoors. "House Bill 536 would limit the ability of leaders to respond quickly to COVID-19 and hamper the health and safety of every North Carolinian," he said in a statement. This refusal to compromise has enraged bar owners, including Wilmington's own Lector Bennett and Maaike Brender À Brandis of Cape Fear Wine and Beer. They've released official statements on the bar's Facebook page supporting NCBATA in their decision to file a lawsuit against Governor Cooper. "As a part of the 15% of NC ABC permittees that cannot open, we are appreciative of [NCBATA's] initiative to make progress," explains Brandis. "If [other bars] can be trusted to open safely, why can't we?" Initially, Bennett and Brandis thought they would be granted permission to open as part of Governor Cooper's phase two plan. This was not the case. "It was devastating," Bennett says. "Restaurant bars, hotel bars, breweries, wineries, distilleries, [and] bottle shops can have people drinking beers but we cannot! This seems crazy. We are able to sell off-premise beers, wines, ciders and meads but now that all the other types of drinking establishments have opened, our sales have dropped." Much of the bar owners' frustrations stem from the fact that every single other type of permit holder in the state of North Carolina has been given the green light, while 1,063 private clubs remain dark. The governor's hemming and hawing, while costing North Carolina residents thousands of dollars, is also bad for morale. "We're all feeling slighted, like second-rate establishments," laments Brandis. "We want to be given the chance to open -- and do it safely and cleanly -- just like everyone else." Among other Wilmington business opposing the governor's actions is Rocco's Cigar Bar. Despite the bar's unique business model -- which currently allows customers to smoke but not consume alcohol in the indoor space -- owner Steve Gimello expresses solidarity with bars unable to open. "We have been unfairly singled out," he says. "Bar owners can handle any guidelines the governor has set for restaurants, breweries or distilleries." Jason Ruth, owner of Tinyz Tavern on Gordon Road, sees only one way forward. "While lines of communication remain open with the Governor's office, we feel the courts are the best route for us all to get equal treatment under the order." The lawsuit demands a temporary restraining order from Executive Order 141, also known as phase two, allowing bars to reopen. Zack Medford, president of NCBATA, insists that, even though he has requested scientific data, proving that keeping private clubs closed is preventing the spread of COVID-19, the governor's office has no such data. The lack of proof makes the governor's decision seem arbitrary -- or, worse, anti-bar. "The governor keeps saying he's based his decision on facts and data but refuses to show any proof that drinking in a bar is riskier than drinking at a restaurant or hotel bar," explains Bennett. "When we are able to reopen, we plan on following the CDC and WHO guidelines to ensure safety." "Cape Fear Wine & Beer is very concerned about the spread of COVID-19," Brandis confirms. While North Carolina lawmakers continue to try to pass legislation to ease the financial burden of novel coronavirus, the infection rate and death toll continue to climb. NC's health secretary Mandy Cohen warned the recent spike in cases could cause current policy to roll backward and result in a second shutdown. The NCBATA is pushing forward to try to get Governor Cooper to change his mind. The organization has started a GoFundMe page, in an attempt to raise capital for the extensive legal fees it takes to pull off the case. As of June 15, they have raised more than $20k of their $25k goal. Bennett is hopeful this will be the bar's saving grace. "Other than relocating the bar 70 miles south, this is our best chance at prevailing." [GN] ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Paid $135,000 Mootness Fee ---------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the case, Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin et. al., which resulted in a payment by the Company of $135,000 in mootness fees to the defendants. In connection with the pending merger acquisition of Hamilton Bancorp, Inc., on February 15, 2019, Orrstown filed with the SEC a proxy statement/prospectus dated February 8, 2019. The Proxy Statement/Prospectus is the proxy statement for Hamilton's special meeting of stockholders to be held on March 20, 2019 to vote on the approval of the merger, and is also Orrstown's prospectus with respect to the shares of Orrstown's common stock to be issued to Hamilton stockholders in the merger. On March 5, 2019, Paul Parshall, a purported individual stockholder of Hamilton, filed, on behalf of himself and all of Hamilton's stockholders other than the named defendants and their affiliates, a derivative and putative class action complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned Paul Parshall v. Carol Coughlin et. al., naming each Hamilton director, Orrstown, and Hamilton as defendants. The Action alleged, among other things, that Hamilton's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Purported Class in connection with the merger, and that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus omitted certain material information regarding the merger. Orrstown was alleged to have aided and abetted the Hamilton directors' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Action sought, among other remedies, to enjoin the merger or, in the event the merger was completed, rescission of the merger or rescissory damages; unspecified damages; and costs of the lawsuit, including attorneys' and experts' fees. A settlement was reached on the Action in March 2020 which resulted in a payment by the Company of $135,000 in mootness fees to the defendants in April 2020. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust services in the United States. The company provides its banking and bank-related services through branches located in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Seeks to Appeal Ruling in SEPTA Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the Defendants in a class action initiated by The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) intend to appeal a trial court ruling that granted SEPTA leave to file a third amended complaint. On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, Orrstown Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Orrstown Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm, Smith Elliott Kearns & Company, LLC ("SEK"), and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification would be scheduled after the Court’s ruling on the motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA’s motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1.0 million. The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support dismissal of the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly. On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15, 2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018, and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019. On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged expert reports in opposition to and in support of class certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants' opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23, 2018. On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and possible revisions to the case schedule. On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the Court. On March 27, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties to discuss outstanding discovery issues and case deadlines. On May 2, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report. On May 10, 2018, the Court held a follow-up telephonic status conference at which the parties reported on the progress of discovery to date. Party and non-party document discovery in the case has continued. To date, SEPTA has taken a few non-party depositions. On August 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a motion to compel the production of Confidential Supervisory Information (CSI) of non-parties the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, in the possession of Orrstown and third parties. On August 23, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed a response to the motion to compel. On August 30, 2018, the FRB filed an unopposed motion to intervene in the Action for the purpose of opposing SEPTA’s motion to compel, and on September 27, 2018, the FRB filed its brief in opposition to SEPTA's motion. On October 11, 2018, SEPTA filed its reply brief in support of its motion to compel. On February 12, 2019, the Court denied SEPTA's motion to compel the production of CSI on the ground that SEPTA had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. On April 11, 2019, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint seeks to reassert the Securities Act claims that the Court dismissed as to all defendants on December 7, 2016, when the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The proposed third amended complaint also seeks to reassert the Exchange Act claims against those defendants that the Court dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016. Defendants' briefs in opposition to SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint were filed on April 25, 2019. SEPTA filed a reply brief in further support of its motion for leave to file a third amended complaint on May 9, 2019. On June 13, 2019, Orrstown filed a motion for protective order to stay discovery pending resolution of SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On June 19, 2019, former defendants SEK and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering joined in Orrstown's motion for protective order. On June 25, 2019, SEPTA filed its opposition to Orrstown's motion. On July 9, 2019, Orrstown filed a reply brief in further support of its motion. On July 17, 2019, the Court entered an Order partially granting Orrstown's motion for protective order, ruling that all deposition discovery in the case is stayed pending a decision on SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. On February 14, 2020, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting SEPTA's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint is now the operative complaint. It reinstates the Orrstown Defendants, as well as SEK and the underwriter defendants, previously dismissed from the case on December 7, 2016. The third amended complaint also revives the previously-dismissed 1933 Securities Act claim against the Orrstown Defendants, SEK, and the underwriter defendants. Under the Court-ordered briefing schedule, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the third amended complaint on April 24, 2020. SEPTA's oppositions were due May 29, 2020, and defendants' reply briefs were due June 19, 2020. On February 24, 2020, the Orrstown Defendants, and the underwriter defendants and SEK, separately filed motions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) asking the Court to certify its February 14, 2020 Order for interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. SEPTA filed its brief in opposition on April 21, 2020. Defendants' reply briefs were due May 11, 2020. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's third amended complaint are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. operates as the holding company for Orrstown Bank that provides commercial banking and trust services in the United States. The company provides its banking and bank-related services through branches located in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry, and York counties of Pennsylvania, as well as Washington County, Maryland. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. OSHKOSH CORP: 401(K) Plan Participant Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Wisconsin-based industrial equipment maker Oshkosh Corp. was sued by a participant in its 401(k) plan who says the plan charges excessive fees and offers expensive, actively managed funds instead of cheaper, better performing alternatives. Oshkosh's $1.1 billion plan offers mostly high-fee mutual funds, excludes many low-cost index funds, and overpays for record keeping services, plan participant Andrew Albert said in a proposed class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Oshkosh allowed the plan's record keeping fees to rise by nearly 250% over a four-year period without negotiating a better deal. COURT: E.D. Wis. TRACK DOCKET: No. 1:20-cv-00901 JUDGE: William C. Griesbach COMPANY INFO: Oshkosh Corp. [GN] PINNACLE BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated businesses and individuals v. Pinnacle Bank and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02225-BHH (D.S.C., June 11, 2020), alleges that Pinnacle refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan agent fees out of the compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans. 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 (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II). The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant). The lawsuit seeks compensation from Pinnacle for services the Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. 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. Pinnacle Bank has been a locally owned, community bank since 1934.[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. Tanenbaum, 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, S.C. 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 PLAID LLC: Illegally Collects Bank Login Data, Mitchell Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, LOGAN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLAID INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04230 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020), arises from the Defendant's common law invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, negligence and violations of California Constitution, the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, California's Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, and California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks to represent similarly situated persons in the United States whose accounts at a financial institution were accessed by Plaid using login credentials that Plaid obtained through software incorporated in a web-based or mobile software applications that enabled money transfers or payments from January 1, 2013 to the present. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is engaged in a deceptive scheme of collecting, storing and using the login credentials of bank account users in the United States. The Defendant partnered with financial technology apps and persuaded them to allow Plaid to be the data plumbing connecting users to their bank accounts. The Defendant violates reasonable expectations of privacy of the users, including the Plaintiff, by: (1) collecting, storing and using data more than what it needs to link users' accounts to financial technology apps; (2) deceiving users into thinking that they are entering their credentials directly with their trusted financial institutions, when in fact they are providing those credentials to Plaid for Plaid's permanent retention and use; (3) failing to disclose to the users that it profits from the collected data; and (4) failing to disclose the scope and nature of its data practices. The Defendant's conduct caused substantial harm to the Plaintiff and Class Members, including by destroying their rights to indemnification for improper withdrawals from their bank accounts, by otherwise impairing the integrity of their data, and by damaging their dignitary rights. Plaid Inc. is a financial technology company, with its principal place of business at 85 Second Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100 Mountain View, CA 94040 Telephone: (650) 784-4040 E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com asheanin@robinskaplan.com - and – Kellie Lerner, Esq. Hollis Salzman, Esq. William Reiss, Esq. David Rochelson, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com hsalzman@robinskaplan.com wreiss@robinskaplan.com drochelson@robinskaplan.com PROASSURANCE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on June 22 disclosed that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) between April 26, 2019 and May 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased ProAssurance securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit ProAssurance Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten; and (iii) as a result, ProAssurance was subject to materially heightened risk of financial loss and reserve charges. On January 22, 2020 ProAssurance announced that because of a deteriorating loss experience related mainly to one large healthcare account the Company was estimating a $37 million adverse development in its specialty P&C loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019. In response to this disclosure ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.18 per share or 11% to close at $33.40 per share on January 23, 2020. Then, on May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. In response to this disclosure, ProAssurance's stock price fell $4.38 per share, or 22% to close at $15.95 per share on May 8, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased ProAssurance securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/proassurancecorporation-pra-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-278/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] PROASSURANCE CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of those who acquired ProAssurance Corporation ("ProAssurance" or the "Company") (NYSE: PRA) securities during the period from April 26, 2019 through May 7, 2020. Investors have until August 17, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that: (i) ProAssurance lacked adequate underwriting process and risk management controls necessary to set appropriate loss reserves in its Specialty P&C segment; and (ii) ProAssurance failed to properly assess a large national healthcare account that experienced losses far exceeding the assumptions made when the account was underwritten. On January 22, 2020, ProAssurance disclosed a $37 million charge to its loss reserves for the fourth quarter of 2019 due to "deteriorating loss experience, driven by a large national healthcare account." On this news, the price of ProAssurance shares fell $4.18, or 11.1%, to close at $33.40 on January 23, 2020. On February 20, 2020, ProAssurance revealed that the charge was actually $51.5 million, not $37 million. On May 8, 2020, ProAssurance announced that the large healthcare client would likely not renew its policy and instead would likely exercise an option for tail coverage that would result in an additional $50 million in losses in the second quarter of 2020. On this news, the price of ProAssurance shares fell $4.38, or 21.5%, to close at $15.95 on May 8, 2020. If you acquired ProAssurance securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq. (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com [GN] PROGREXION TELESERVICES: Born & Chauhan Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Cristin Born and Jessica Chauhan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-00107-RJS-DAO (D. Utah), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying a class under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The class is defined as: "all Hourly Call-Center Employees Who Were Employed by Progrexion Teleservices, Inc., Anywhere in the United States, at Any Time from February 19, 2017 Through the Final Disposition of This Matter." The Plaintiffs contend that because Progrexion does not allow employees to clock in until the start up tasks have been performed, it maintains a company-wide policy requiring employees to perform work off-the-clock and without pay. Progrexion provides technology and credit repair services to hundreds of thousands of consumer clients throughout the United States.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone (361) 452-1279 E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com - and - Andrew W. Stavros, Esq. STAVROS LAW P.C. 8915 South 700 East, Suite 202 Sandy, UT 84070 Telephone: (801) 758-7604 Facsimile: (801) 893-3573 E-mail: andy@stavroslaw.com PSLA LLC: Roldan and Moore Seek Proper Wage Pay for Entertainers ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL ROLDAN, an individual; DEZUANEY MOORE, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. PSLA LLC dba PLATINUM SHOWGIRLS LA, a California Limited Liability Corporation; MOHAN MAKKER, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-05638 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs against Defendants for damages due to Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and illegally absconding with Plaintiffs' tips. The causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint. During their time being employed by Defendants, Plaintiffs were denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other exotic dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." Furthermore, Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision. As a result of Defendants' violations, Plaintiffs seek to recover all tips kept by the employer, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA. PSLA LLC dba Platinum Showgirls LA, a California Limited Liability Corporation, operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility located in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Jacob J. Ventura, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com jacob@kristensenlaw.com QWEST CORP: Sales Practices Suit v. CenturyLink Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that CenturyLink, Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. In June 2017, a former employee of CenturyLink filed an employment lawsuit against CenturyLink claiming that she was wrongfully terminated for alleging that CenturyLink charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Starting shortly thereafter and continuing since then, and based in part on the allegations made by the former employee, several legal proceedings have been filed. In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against CenturyLink in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that it charged some of its retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. Other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal and state courts, as well. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Also, in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. Beginning June 2017, CenturyLink received several shareholder derivative demands addressing related topics. In August 2017, CenturyLink's Board of Directors formed a special litigation committee of outside directors to address the allegations of impropriety contained in the shareholder derivative demands. In April 2018, the special litigation committee concluded its review of the derivative demands and declined to take further action. Since then, derivative cases were filed in Louisiana state court in the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita and in federal court in Louisiana and Minnesota. These cases have been brought on behalf of CenturyLink against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and seek damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The consumer putative class actions, the securities investor putative class actions, and the federal derivative actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation. Subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval, CenturyLink agreed to settle the consumer putative class actions for payments of $15.5 million to compensate class members and of up to $3.5 million for administrative costs. In the second quarter of 2019, CenturyLink accrued for these obligations, and a portion of the administrative costs has been expended in 2020. Certain class members may elect to opt out of the class settlement and pursue the resolution of their individual claims against us on these issues through various dispute resolution processes, including individual arbitration. One law firm claims to represent more than 22,000 potential class members. To the extent that a substantial number of class members, including many of the law firm's alleged clients, meet the contractual requirements to arbitrate, elect to opt out of the settlement (or otherwise successfully exclude their individual claims), and actually pursue arbitrations, CenturyLink and the company could incur a material amount of filing and other arbitrations fees in relation to the administration of those claims. In July 2017, the Minnesota state attorney general filed State of Minnesota v. CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC, et al. in the Anoka County Minnesota District Court, alleging claims of fraud and deceptive trade practices relating to improper consumer sales practices. Qwest said, "CenturyLink has engaged in discussions regarding potential resolutions of these claims with a number of state attorneys general, and have entered into agreements settling the Minnesota suit and certain of the consumer practices claims asserted by state attorneys general. While CenturyLink does not agree with allegations raised in these matters, it has been willing to consider reasonable settlements where appropriate." Qwest Corporation, an integrated communications company, provides communications services to business and residential customers in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is based in Monroe, Louisiana. Qwest Corporation operates as a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc. RANCHO RESTAURANT: Underpays Employees, Veras Claims ---------------------------------------------------- GREGORIO VERAS, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERMIN SALAZAR BATISTA, ROBIN SALAZAR NUNEZ, LENY SALAZAR NUNEZEZ and RANCHO RESTAURANT CORP (DBA EL RANCHO DOMINICANO) jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02815 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against Defendants for their alleged wrongful withholding of their employees' lawfully earned wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher and helper from November 2018 until the present time. Plaintiff claims that he was never paid by Defendant a lawful minimum wage and overtime throughout his employment with Defendants despite working an average of 54 hours per week prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. The complaint asserts that Defendants failed to: -- provide Plaintiff with any wage statements, time sheets, or other documents showing the number of hours he worked every week; -- provide Plaintiff with a wage notice at the time of hire or at any point thereafter; and -- post notices that explain the minimum wage rights of their employees. Fermin Salazar Batista, Robin Salazar Nunez, and Leny Salazar Nunezez were the owners, authorized operators, managers, and agents of the Corporate Defendant. Rancho Restaurant Corp (dba El Rancho Dominicano) operates a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL PC 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: 212-203-2417 Email: LS@StillmanLegalPC.com RYDER SYSTEM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 24 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. WORX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1 R Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1 WFC Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * SCWorx Corp. (WORX) WORX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 13, 2020 - April 17, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 29, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/scworx-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, SCWorx Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SCWorx's supplier for COVID-19 tests had previously misrepresented its operations; (2) SCWorx's buyer was a small company that was unlikely to adequately support the purported volume of orders for COVID-19 tests; (3) as a result, the Company's purchase order for COVID-19 tests had been overstated or entirely fabricated; and (4) 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. Ryder System, Inc. (NYSE:R) R Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 23, 2015 - February 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ryder-system-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ryder System, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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; (2) there was no reasonable basis to believe that Ryder would sell its used vehicles for the amounts that it had assigned to them; (3) Ryder's residual values for its fleet of vehicles exceeded the expected future values that would be realized upon the sale of those vehicles; and (4) 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. Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) WFC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 5, 2020 - May 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=7516&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wells Fargo & Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Wells Fargo planned to, and did, improperly allocate government-backed loans under the Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP"), and/or had inadequate controls in place to prevent such misallocation; (ii) the foregoing foreseeably increased the Company's litigation risk with respect to PPP allocation, as well as increased regulatory scrutiny and/or potential enforcement actions; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 [GN] SEA LEGS: Alinikoff Seeks Wages for Work Performed as Bartender --------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB ALINIKOFF, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the general public as private attorneys general v. SEA LEGS WINE BAR, INC., a California corporation; JACKMONT HOSPITALITY, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22544 (Cal. Super., June 15, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, restitution and compensation for work performed and monies due to him and similarly situated employees/staff. The Plaintiff became employed by the Defendants in June 2014 as a bartender, non-exempt and/or hourly employee. Sea Legs is a restaurants company based out of Huntington Beach, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. Ali M. Sachani, Esq. Claudette H. Villicana, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GARY R. CARLIN, APC 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562)435-1656 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com ali@carlinbuchsbaum.com claudette@carlinbuchsbaum.com SEATTLE, WA: Violates Property Rights, Hunters Capital Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, HUNTERS CAPITAL, LLC; NORTHWEST LIQUOR AND WINE LLC; SRJ ENTERPRISES, d/b/a CAR TENDER; THE RICHMARK COMPANY d/b/a RICHMARK LABEL; SAGE PHYSICAL THERAPY PLLC; KATHLEEN CAPLES; ONYX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; WADE BILLER; MADRONA REAL ESTATE SERVICES LLC; MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS IV LLC; MADRONA REAL ESTATE INVESTORS VI LLC; 12TH AND PIKE ASSOCIATES LLC; REDSIDE PARTNERS LLC; MAGDALENA SKY; OLIVE ST APARTMENTS LLC; and BERGMAN'S LOCK AND KEY SERVICES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00983 (W.D. Wash., June 24, 2020), arises from the Defendant's violation of procedural due process, nuisance, substantive due process, unlawful gift pursuant to Article VIII, Section 7 of Washington State Constitution, and unlawful taking. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated individuals and residents in the State of Washington, allege that the City of Seattle violated their constitutionally protected property rights by: (1) creating, assisting, endorsing, and encouraging an indefinite, unpermitted occupation and blockade of the public streets, sidewalks, and parks in and around Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP), thereby denying Plaintiffs access to their properties, and (2) creating, assisting, endorsing, and encouraging the pervasive vandalism and trespasses against Plaintiffs' properties, thereby denying Plaintiffs the ability to use their properties and exclude others from them. The City provided Plaintiffs with no notice or opportunity to be heard before or after denying the Plaintiffs of their rights to access their properties, use their properties, and exclude others from their properties. In addition to blocking public rights-of-way, the City's actions have created and maintained a series of unlawful and/or unreasonable conditions throughout the CHOP area including excessive noise, public safety hazards, vandalism, and poor health and sanitation conditions. The City also violated Article VIII, Section 7 of Washington State Constitution by giving away an interest in public property without consideration and with donative intent to CHOP participants. The City has granted CHOP participants the right to occupy and use these public properties without interference and to the exclusion of others. As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiffs and Class members have been harmed, including deprivation of their use of public property in Capitol Hill, limitation on access to their private property, vandalism and trespass to their private property by CHOP participants, loss of revenue, loss of property value, damages to property, and other damages. Hunters Capital LLC is a real-estate development, investment, and management company with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. SRJ Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Car Tender, is an automotive repair business with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. The Richmark Company, d/b/a Richmark Label, is a family-owned label printing and manufacturing business with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Northwest Liquor and Wine LLC is a specialty liquor, beer, and wine store operator with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Physical Therapy PLLC is a provider of rehabilitative and therapeutic physical therapy with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. The Onyx Homeowners Association is a registered homeowners association in King County, Washington. Madrona Real Estate Services LLC is a real-estate development and full-service real-estate management company with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Madrona Real Estate Investors IV LLC is a real-estate investment company with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Madrona Real Estate Investors VI LLC is a real-estate investment company with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. 12th and Pike Associates LLC is a real-estate investment company with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Redside Partners LLC is a real-estate investment and management company with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Olive ST Apartments LLC is an owner and operator of apartment complexes with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. Bergman's Lock and Key Services LLC is a provider of lock and key services for residential and commercial properties, with its principal place of business in King County, Washington. The City of Seattle is a municipality incorporated in the State of Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patty A. Eakes, Esq. Angelo J. Calfo, Esq. CALFO EAKES LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 407-2200 Facsimile: (206) 407-2224 E-mail: pattye@calfoeakes.com angeloc@calfoeakes.com SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Kiddie Academy Seeks Payment for COVID Losses ------------------------------------------------------------------ QUAKERBRIDGE EARLY LEARNING LLC d/b/a KIDDIE ACADEMY OF HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW ENGLAND and SELECTIVE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-07798-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., June 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of their insurance policy. According to the complaint, the Defendants rejected the Plaintiff's business loss and business interruption claims and other claims pursuant to insurance policy, contending, inter alia, that the Plaintiff did not suffer physical damage to its property directly and therefore not entitled to coverage for the losses and damages incurred. The Plaintiff alleges that the insurance policy that it bought from the Defendants is an all-risk policy, which includes business interruption coverage for closure by Order of Civil Authority, along with coverage for extended expenses. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated child care centers purchased the Defendants' policy with an expectation that they were purchasing a policy that would provide coverage in the event of business interruption and extended expenses, such as that suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of COVID-19. At no time had Defendants, or their agents, notified the Plaintiff and Class members that the coverage that they had purchased pursuant to an all-risk policy that included business interruption coverage had exclusions and provisions that purportedly undermined the very purpose of the coverage, of providing benefits in the occurrence of business interruption and incurring extended expenses. Quakerbridge Early Learning LLC, d/b/a Kiddie Academy of Hamilton, is a daycare center which operates at 3848 Quakerbridge Road, Hamilton Township, New Jersey. Selective Insurance Company of New England is an insurance company whose headquarters and principal place of business are in New Jersey. Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is an insurance company whose headquarters and principal place of business are in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold Levin, Esq. Laurence S. Berman, Esq. Frederick Longer, Esq. Daniel Levin, Esq. Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, L.L.P. 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com lberman@lfsblaw.com flonger@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com - 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 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 SK ENERGY: Poe Valley Alleges Price-Fixing of Gasoline ------------------------------------------------------ POE VALLEY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SK ENERGY AMERICAS, INC.; SK TRADING INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD; and VITOL INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-04228 (N.D. Cal., June 25, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Cartwright Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendants are engaged in anticompetitive scheme in order to manipulate and raise the spot market price for gasoline in California. The Defendants took advantage of an explosion incident at a gasoline refinery complex located in Torrance, California in February 2015 to restrain competition in the spot market for gasoline and gasoline components and to artificially inflate their prices. The Defendants' coordinated trading activities include: (1) engaging in sham transactions to obfuscate the true nature of the supply and demand dynamic in California's gasoline market; (2) trading with each other with the purpose and effect of creating spikes in the spot market price; and (3) entering into prearranged, unreported buy and sell transactions with each other to share profits from the scheme. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful business conduct, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class suffered financial damages as they paid more for gasoline than they would have paid in a competitive market. SK Energy Americas, Inc. is a petroleum and petroleum products company located in Houston, Texas and a wholly-owned subsidiary of SK Energy International. SK Trading International Co. Ltd. is a South Korean corporation that operates as an oil broking agency, with its head office at 26 Jongno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea. Vitol Inc. is an energy and commodities company, with business office located at 2925 Richmond Avenue 11th Floor Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek G. Howard, Esq. DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC. 42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 432-7192 E-mail: Derek@derekhowardlaw.com - and – Daniel J. Mulligan, Esq. JENKINS MULLIGAN & GABRIEL LLP 10085 Carroll Canyon Rd., Ste. 210 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 527-1792 E-mail: dan@jmglawoffices.com SMASHBOX BEAUTY: Sued by Hockey for Misclassifying Employees ------------------------------------------------------------ NATALIE HOCKEY, an individual, and REBECCA QUINN, an individual, and other aggrieved employees v. SMASHBOX BEAUTY COSMETICS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20SMCV00803 (June 12, 2020), seeks civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004, California Labor Code. The action is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all non-exempt aggrieved employees in California and challenges the Defendants' employment practices with respect to payment of wages. The action is also brought over the Defendants' knowing and intentional policies and practices of misclassifying the Plaintiffs as independent contractors and failing to timely pay the Plaintiffs' earned wages upon discharge in violation of the Labor Code. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees out of the Defendants' studios in Culver City, California. The Defendants are in the business of manufacture and retail sales of makeup and cosmetic products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Low IV, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF JOSEPH H. LOW IV 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 901-0840 Facsimile: (562) 901-0841 - and - Roger Y. Muse, Esq. John R. Matheny, Esq. EXCELSIOR LAW 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 205-3981 Facsimile: (310) 205-0594 SOCIETY INSURANCE: Denies Coverage of COVID Losses, 726 West Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- 726 WEST GRAND LLC, 4301 NORTH WESTERN AVENUE, 6334 N CLARK CORPORATION, AA SPORTS CONNECTION INC., BUTTERFLY SOCIAL CLUB, GASTHAUS ZUM LOEWEN INC., MATSUI-JONES CORPORATION, NUMBERUNO LLC, IRVING SACRAMENTO, INC., DIGGER'S PUB INC., ZRD LLC, and ZUKU LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, Case No. 1:20-cv-03432 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2020), alleges that Society Insurance has routinely and uniformly refused to pay its insureds under its Business Income, Civil Authority, Contamination, and Extra Expense coverages for losses suffered due to COVID-19 crisis. The Plaintiffs contend that as a result of the outbreak of a virus popularly known as SARS in 2003, many business owners' policies contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses. However, they note, Society Insurance's Special Property Coverage Form does not contain any exclusion for losses caused by viruses. The Plaintiffs say they were forced to suspend or reduce their restaurant and tavern business by a new type of SARS virus, known as COVID-19, and the related orders issued by the Governor of Illinois and Mayor of Chicago mandating the closure of businesses like the Plaintiffs' for on-site services. The Plaintiffs aver that they operate consistently profitable restaurants and taverns throughout the Chicagoland area. They purchased insurance coverage from Society Insurance to protect those businesses from sudden, unanticipated suspensions of their business activities. The insurance they purchased from Society Insurance includes the special property coverage set forth in Society Insurance's Businessowner's Special Property Coverage Form, entitled "Special Property Coverage Form." Society Insurance is a mutual insurance company organized under the laws of Wisconsin, with its principal place of business in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Society Insurance is authorized to write, sell, and issue insurance policies providing property and business income coverage.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. Anthony F. Fata, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-mail: afata@caffertyclobes.com nrasche@caffertyclobes.com ctourek@caffertyclobes.com - and - Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 205 North Monroe Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com - and - Blake T. Hannafan, Esq. HANNAFAN & HANNAFAN, LTD. 180 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 527-0055 E-mail: bth@hannafanlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Herrera Suit Moved From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO HERRERA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE, USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV12815 (Filed April 1, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 15, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05325 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act; failure to make proper disclosures; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to accurately pay wages; and failure to provide lawful meal periods. T-Mobile is an American wireless network operator. T-Mobile's largest shareholder is the German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom with a 43% share, with Japanese conglomerate holding company SoftBank Group partially owning the company as well at a 24% share.[BN] Defendant T-Mobile is represented by: Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. Lauren Schwartz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: 310 553 0308 Facsimile: 310 553 5583 E-mail: kjacoby@littler.com lschwartz@littler.com - and - Gregory G. Iskander, 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 TERMINIX INT'L: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone & Email Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- The case, DAVID L. WILSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00812 (E.D. Mo., June 22, 2020) arises from Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff contacted Defendant first on or around May 5, 2020 to obtain a price quote for Defendant's services, and then informed Defendant that he was not interested in Defendant's services after receiving a price quote. However, Plaintiff began receiving numerous calls to his cellular phone (417) XXX-2923 from Defendant's phone number (417) 841-5459 despite being told that he was not interested in its services. Moreover, Defendant sent Plaintiff an email on or around June 12, 2020 in an attempt to market its different services. Terminix International Company is a pest control company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 568-3056 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com TERRY YORK: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Wayman Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROSALIE WAYMAN, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV22528 (June 15, 2020), seeks civil penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code, Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff contends that during her employment with the Defendants, she and aggrieved employees were paid on a commission basis, whereby, they were paid a commission per vehicle sold or leased. While paid on a commission basis, they were not separately compensated for time spent working on tasks, which were not compensated on a commission basis, including, for example, hours spent waiting for customers and attending sales meetings (i.e., non-productive time), according to the complaint. As a result, they were not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiff also alleges that she and other aggrieved employees routinely worked in excess of 8 hours per workday and/or 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants since June 2019. The Defendants own and operate the Land Rover Encino car dealership in Encino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Z. Boren, Esq. Lance M. Williams, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 222 North Pacific Coast Hwy., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2021 Facsimile: (310) 322-2228 E-mail: sboren@bollaw.com lwilliams@bollaw.com TIVITY HEALTH: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff & Counsel Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and counsel in the class action suit initiated by Robert Strougo is pending. On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and February 19, 2020 (the "Strougo Lawsuit"). The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief executive officer as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the performance of the Nutrisystem business that the Company acquired on March 8, 2019. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Three parties have filed a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and counsel, but the Court has not ruled on those motions. Tivity said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation and the preliminary stage of the case, we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome of the matter or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this complaint." Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit to Begin May 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------- Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by Eric Weiner is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021. On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017 ("Weiner Lawsuit"). The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff, designated counsel for the lead plaintiff, and established certain deadlines for the case. On June 4, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss on March 18, 2019 and the Company's Motion to Reconsider on May 22, 2019. On January 29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to certify the class. The Company has appealed the Order certifying the class to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021. * * * In a June 11, 2020 order, Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern granted the Joint Motion for Limited Extension of Schedule filed by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. The Court held that the deadline to conclude fact discovery and file any related motions is extended to October 2, 2020. All other deadlines remain as previously set. Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TRUIST BANK: Refuses to Pay PPP Loan Agent Fees, Ratliff Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ratliff CPA Firm, PC, a South Carolina Professional Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of similar situated businesses and individuals v. Truist Bank and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02207-BHH (D.S.C., June 11, 2020), alleges that Truist refuses to comply with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act that requires it to pay loan agent fees out of the compensation it received for processing Paycheck Protection Program loans. 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 (PPP I). After the initial funds quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program (PPP II). The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders would be compensated in the form of a generous origination fee paid by the federal government, with the requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying the fee owed to the loan applicant's agent (e.g., attorney or accountant). The lawsuit seeks compensation from Truist for services the Plaintiff and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small Business Administration emergency loans. 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. Truist Bank offers housing loans, lines of credit, and credit cards.[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. Tanenbaum, 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, S.C. 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 TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: 8th Circuit Appeal Filed in Pederson Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 8, 2020, in the lawsuit styled Dan Pederson, et al v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Case No. 0:19-cv-02735-JRT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the organization, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., in negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs through text messages on Plaintiffs' cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiffs' privacy. Trump For President is the official candidate committee that facilitates and financially supports Mr. Trump's campaign for office. Trump For President is registered with the Federal Elections Commission. Trump For President routinely sends text messages to wireless telephones with automatic telephone dialing equipment without the wireless users prior express consent. The appellate case is captioned as Dan Pederson, et al. v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Case No. 20-2239, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Dan Pederson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Connor Olson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and Shell Wheeler, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Kas Gallucci, Esq. Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RON A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 E-mail: kas@consuneradvocates.com ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumeradvocates.com - and - Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Street Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com Defendant-Appellant Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., a principal campaign committee, is represented by: Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq. JONES DAY 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 217-8800 E-mail: bellison@jonesday.com - and - Kaytlin Roholt, Esq. Brett A. Shumate, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 E-mail: kroholtlane@jonesday.com bshumate@jonesday.com TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the appeal by certain individual investors and entities from their court-dismissed motion to intervene in a class action lawsuit against Trustmark National Bank (TNB) remains pending. On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions and one individual, each of which are unaffiliated with Trustmark, as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group) and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Class Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Class Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues. In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's claims. The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i) aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii) aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy. On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the action. On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC. On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule. On November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii) aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty. On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification and designation of class representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the discovery stay that it had previously ordered. On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied the motions to intervene. On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a notice of appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. UNITED STATES OIL: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on June 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO" or the "Company") (NYSE:USO). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased USO securities between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2020. USO is an exchange-traded fund ("ETF") supposedly designed to track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma. The lawsuit alleges that defendants stated that USO would achieve its investment objective by investing substantially all of its portfolio assets in the near month WTI futures contract. Due to extraordinary market conditions in early 2020, USO's purported investment objective and strategy became unfeasible. According to the complaint, rather than disclose the known impacts and risks to the fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars of USO shares in March 2020. Ultimately, the fund suffered billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its investment strategy. It was not until late April and May 2020 that defendants acknowledged the extreme threats and adverse impacts that the fund had been experiencing at the time of the March offering, but which they failed to disclose to investors. If you are interested in learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a lawsuit entitled, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company (UHS) and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations at the company's behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price following various public disclosures or reports. In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In April 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint. Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania. USANA HEALTH: Lacasse Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN LACASSE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. USANA HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00278413, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 15, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01186-KJM-AC to the proceeding. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the California Labor Code arising from their failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, and failure to reimburse business expenses. USANA, is a Utah-based multi-level marketing company that produces various nutritional products, dietary supplements and skincare products.[BN] The Defendant USANA is represented by: Gregory M. Saylin, Esq. David R. Williams, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 222 South Main Street, Suite 2200 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 799-5800 Facsimile: (801) 799-5700 E-mail: gmsaylin@hollandhart.com drwilliams@hollandhart.com USC: Kerendian Suit Removed From Super. Court to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN KERENDIAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all members of the putative class, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV17388 (Filed May 6, 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 11, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-05190-AB-SK to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract; unjust enrichment; conversion; and violation of California Business and Professions Code. USC is a private research university in Los Angeles, California. Founded in 1880, it is the oldest private research university in California.[BN] Defendant University of Southern California is represented by: Michelle C. Doolin, Esq. Leo P. Norton, Esq. Alexandra R. Mayhugh, Esq. Michael N. Sheetz, Esq. COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Telephone: 858 550 6000 Facsimile: 858 550 6420 E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com lnorton@cooley.com amayhugh@cooley.com msheetz@cooley.com USHEALTH ADVISORS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, St. Clair Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ANUEL ST. CLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant, Case 0:20-cv-61206-RKA (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2020) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. USHEALTH Group, Inc. provides insurance services. The Company offers life, specified disease, sickness, accident, and disability insurance solutions for self-employed individuals, families, small business owners, and employees. USHEALTH Group serves its clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com VALEANT PHARMA: $1.21-Bil. Deal Recommended for Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658, Special Master Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (ret), has recommended the approval of the Lead Plaintiff's motions for (1) Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and (2) An Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Awards to Plaintiffs Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4). The Special Master issued his Report and Recommendation on June 15, 2020. The Report and Recommendation has not yet been adopted by the District Court, said Ted Pintar, Esq., at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, the Plaintiffs' lead counsel. The Settlement, if approved, will result in the creation of a cash settlement fund of $1,210,000,000. This fund, plus accrued interest and minus costs associated with notices, administration of the Settlement, any taxes and tax expenses, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses, and any award to Plaintiffs in connection with their representation of the Class, as approved by the Court -- Net Settlement Fund -- will be distributed to eligible Class Members pursuant to a Plan of Allocation. The Litigation is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey before the Hon. Michael A. Shipp. Valeant, now known as Bausch Health Companies Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020, that in October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company's relationship with Philidor Rx Services, LLC. On May 31, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658. On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2017, the court dismissed certain claims arising out of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and affiliated entities ("ValueAct"). On October 31, 2018, a third-party defendant, ValueAct, filed a motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they agreed to resolve the securities action, subject to final court approval. Once approved by the court, the settlement will resolve and discharge all claims against the Company in the class action. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. On January 27, 2020 the court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for May 27, 2020. In order to qualify for a settlement payment all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company securities during the class period must have submitted a proof of claim and release form by May 6, 2020. The settlement payment is being paid in accordance with the payment schedule outlined in the settlement agreement. Opt-out litigations remain ongoing. No Modifications The Special Master recommended approval of the settlement without modification, including a fee award of 13%, or roughly $157 million of the fund, to the class' lead counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. He also recommended approval of $1.67 million for costs. Holly Barker, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that applying the factors described by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Girsh v. Jepson, Cavanaugh said the circumstances overwhelmingly supported approval. Claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act are, by design, difficult to litigate. And the case presented unique substantive challenges given Valeant's assertion that it was the victim of a rogue employee convicted in 2018 of defrauding the company, potentially undermining one of the plaintiffs' key theories. In recommending final approval, Cavanaugh relied heavily on Valeant's uncertain financial condition and inability to pay a larger judgment. "The Settlement in this case is nearly 150% of Valeant's cash on hand, requiring Valeant to issue additional debt to fund the Settlement, which makes it a particularly good result in light of the risks of ongoing litigation," Cavanaugh wrote. With respect to attorneys' fees, Cavanaugh concluded a 13% award was reasonable for what he called an "excellent result" in complicated, high-risk litigation. The lodestar, or fees based on hours worked, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, would have been about $42 million, meaning the award is the equivalent of 3.6 times the estimated billing. "The Settlement is the ninth largest PSLRA class action settlement ever, the largest against a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and the largest in this District in almost two decades," Cavanaugh said. There were only two objections to the fee award, notwithstanding the well over 400,000 notices sent to potential class members, and Cavanaugh found neither persuasive, concluding the fee award was within the normal range and justified by the over 75,000 hours of work performed by class counsel to litigate and finally settle the claims. Lead plaintiffs, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and the City of Tuscon, were awarded $66,495, $3,002.75, and $3,275, respectively. Settlement Objections The Special Master also recommended that two objections to the deal -- by Jaskirat Lakhat and Timber Hill, LLC -- must be overruled. Lakhat said as he does not believe the Settlement is equitable as he lost over $100,000 due to the alleged fraudulent and negligible action of Defendants. Lakhat objects and requests a variance or deviation of $45.00 per share as an equitable settlement. According to the Special Master, Lakhat's suggestion of an equitable settlement would equate to a classwide settlement of about $25 billion, which Defendants have not agreed to nor is it clear they could fund. Timber Hill argued that the deal gives preferential treatment to Valeant Common Stock and specified Valeant Debt Investors at the expense of Valeant Option Investors, and prevents Valeant Option Investors from sharing in the Net Settlement Fund based on their insider trading claims under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. Timber Hill said the Plan of Allocation allows the Valeant Common Stock and Valeant Debt Investors to share in the Net Settlement Fund on a pro rata basis, while the recovery of Valeant Option Investors is limited to a separate, arbitrarily-allocated and capped fund. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation, 95% of the Net Settlement Fund will be allocated to Valeant common stock and specified Valeant debt securities, with no more than 5% of the Net Settlement Fund allocated to options on Valeant common stock. Timber Hill argued that the Valeant Options Investors should be permitted to share in the recovery on a pro rata basis, that the 5% allocation is arbitrary and represents only about half of the Valeant Options Investors' pro rata share of the overall recovery, and that the putative allocation has a "cap" and clawback feature that returns any unpaid portion of the 5% allocation back into the pro rata pool shared by Valeant Common Stock and Valeant Debt Investors. Timber Hill said the Settlement should be denied final approval or otherwise modified to permit Valeant Option Investors to share in the Net Settlement Fundo on a pro rata basis and to receive the same Section 20A "enhancement" as Valeant Common Stock Investors. Lead Plaintiff argued that Timber Hill already advocated for a 5.35% options cap prior to preliminary approval of the settlement and should not be permitted to nearly double its proposed options cap after being advised that the Plan of Allocation already provided for a 5% cap. Lead Plaintiff said that when the Settlement was publicly announced, counsel for Timber Hill contacted Lead Counsel proposing an allocation for the derivatives investors, based on its own expert analysis, in the "5.35% range[.]" Lead Counsel responded that the Plan of Allocation already provided for an allocation of up to 5% for option claimants. Then, after the Special Master entered the Preliminary Approval Order, Timber Hill and its expert increased their proposed allocation to 9.5% and objected to the Preliminary Approval Order. Lead Plaintiff said Timber Hill's counsel and its expert have previously supported and agreed to allocations of less than 5%. The Special Master held that the treatment of options in the Plan of Allocation is a generally accepted and widely used methodology for equitably allocating a settlement fund in light of the differentiating factors affecting options damages. According to the Special Master, Timber Hill has failed to cite to any case law or controlling precedent to the contrary. The Special Master noted that Professor Steven P. Feinstein, Ph.D., who assisted Lead Counsel in developing the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund, has indicated the Recognized Loss for Valeant Option Investors under the Plan of Allocation is computed equal to the investment loss, while the Recognized Loss for Valeant Common Stock and Valeant Note Investors is computed as the lesser of the investment loss and the inflation loss. Thus, Valeant Option Investors have larger computed Recognized Losses relative to Valeant common stock and note investors. That, in conjunction with the economic bases for limits on the aggregate recovery of options class members, as recognized by Timber Hill's expert -- such as option values naturally diminish overtime and the complex option price dynamics makes it difficult to differentiate between fraud- and non-fraud-based factors -- serves as the basis for the allocation and cap on the Valeant Option Investors' recovery under the Plan of Allocation. With respect to Timber Hill's argument that the Plan of Allocation improperly permits only the Common Stock Investors to recover for Section 20A claims, Dr. Feinstein notes that the Plan of Allocation only permits affected stock transactions to recognize a "market loss" instead of an "inflation-adjusted loss," and Valeant Option Investors are already permitted to recognize market loss under the Section 10(b) portion of the Plan of Allocation. Timber Hill claims that permitting Common Stock Investors to recognize a "market loss" is itself an "enhancement" that is not likewise extended to the Valeant Option Investors. Timber Hill cites no case law or binding authority to support this claim and the Special Master found the argument unpersuasive. * * * The Defendants are Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (n/k/a Bausch Health Companies Inc.), J. Michael Pearson, Howard B. Schiller, Robert L. Rosiello, Deborah Jorn, Ari S. Kellen, Tanya Carro, Jeffrey W. Ubben, Robert A. Ingram, Ronald H. Farmer, Colleen Goggins, Anders Lonner, Theo Melas-Kyriazi, Robert N. Power, Norma Provencio, Katharine B. Stevenson, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., MUFG Securities Americas Inc. f/k/a Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA) Inc., DNB Markets, Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., ValueAct Capital Management, L.P., VA Partners I, LLC, ValueAct Holdings, L.P., ValueAct Capital Master Fund, L.P., ValueAct Co-Invest Master Fund, L.P. Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is not part of the deal. Litigation against PwC is ongoing. Additional information on the settlement is available at: http://www.valeantsecuritiessettlement.com/ Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. VERDE ENERGY: Abbate Sues Over Bait-and-Switch Electricity Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ABBATE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERDE ENERGY USA OHIO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-03196-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers in Ohio, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive practice of luring consumers to switch to its electricity supply services by offering, for a limited period of time, teaser rates that are initially lower than the local Electric Distribution Companies' (EDC's) rates and other competing Certified Retail Electric Suppliers' (CRESs) rates for electricity. Once the initial rate expires, the Defendant automatically switches its customers over to its variable rate, which is higher than the rates of its competitors. Verde's rates remain at an extraordinarily high premium rate for electricity regardless of fluctuations in the underlying market price. As a result of the Defendant's unfair and deceptive scheme, the Plaintiff and Class members paid and continue to pay for higher and above-market electricity rates that do not correlate with market conditions. Verde Energy USA Ohio, LLC is a certified retail electric supplier with principal place of business located at 12140 Wickchester Lane, Suite 100, Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8297 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and – Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM, LLC 134 Kings Hwy. E., 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 772-7200 E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com klaukaitis@shublawyers.com - and – Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0090 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com Lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: Dan@whitfieldbryson.com harper@whitfieldbryson.com WALMART INC: McKnight-Nero Balks at Prejudiced ID of Customers -------------------------------------------------------------- CHEKETA MCKNIGHT-NERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01541-APM (D. Colo., June 11, 2020), alleges that Walmart's policy of requiring door security officers to arbitrarily identify which shoppers are, "Customers with Compromised Health," is implemented in a discriminatory manner. The Plaintiff contends that Walmart's arbitrary policy of allowing contracted security guards to identify people, whom they perceive as disabled or not, and to control entry, is a violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. On May 12, 2020, Ms. McKnight-Nero arrived at the Georgia Avenue location at approximately 6:20 a.m. Upon arriving to the entrance of the store, she was prohibited from entering the store by a contracted security guard from Brosnan Security Solutions. Ms. McKnight has Polycythemia Vera, anemic, high blood pressure and has endured several strokes in her life. Consequently, she is considered "immunocompromised," or someone with a compromised health condition, says the complaint. 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Ikechukwu Emejuru, Esq. EMEJURU LAW L.L.C. 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (240) 638-2786 Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923 E-mail: iemejuru@emejurulaw.com - and - Andrew Nyombi, Esq. KNA Pearl L.L.C. 8701 Georgia Avenue, Suite 606 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 585-1568 Facsimile: 1-800-250-7923 E-mail: anyombi@knapearl.com WATERS OF NORTH LITTLE: Underpays Nurses, Ellis Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE WATERS OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00767-LPR (E.D. Ark., June 19, 2020) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff Ellis was employed by the Defendant as nurse. The Waters of North Little Rock, LLC, is a nursing home provider located at Little Rock, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com WLP EXECUTIVE: Court Denies Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL BIRD, DARRIUS WILLIAMS, and DONTAE TRAVIER, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees v. WLP EXECUTIVE PROTECTION GROUP, LLC, RON WARE, JAMES PITTS, and JEFFREY LILLARD, Case No. 1:19-cv-00442-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Gordon J. Qquist entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and 2. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification; and 3. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants.[CC] WOODBRIDGE VISTA: Thompson Rogers Issues Class Action Proceeding ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Edwards, writing for The Post Millennial, reports that a class action proceeding has been issued by Thompson Rogers claiming damages of $15 million on behalf of families and residents of a Woodbridge long-term care home. The home -- Woodbridge Vista Care Community -- owned by Sienna Senior Living and it lost dozens of residents to coronavirus-related deaths for what plaintiffs say was neglect, reports the REMI Network. Thompson Rogers issued a press release on June 15, 2020 stating that Joanne Dykeman, Sienna's Executive Vice President of Operations made "disparaging and mocking comments" towards the home's residents and families during an online meeting on June 3. She was dismissed from her position as a result of the incident. William Osler Health System's was appointed as interim manager by the Ontario government on June 5—replacing Sienna. The Canadian Armed Forces around June 7, were deployed to the long-term care home to help with the provision of care. On June 12, Sienna president and CEO, Louis Cormack resigned. "This is the second action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of residents at a Sienna Senior Living facility," noted Stephen Birman, a partner involved in the class actions. "The reported conditions at Woodbridge Vista and the Altamont Care facilities are appalling. As a community we trust these facilities to take care of our loved ones with an expectation that the needs of our most vulnerable are looked after." Thompson Rogers has also contacted Prime Minister Trudeau's office along with the office of Premier Doug Ford, requesting that the cost of the Canadian Armed Forces deployment and the involvement of William Osler Health System's does not fall on taxpayers. "These costs should be fully reimbursed by Sienna and not shouldered by the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada," Birman noted. Thomson Rogers says plaintiffs involved in the class action suit seek compensation for the deaths of their loved ones and they support the idea of an independent commission for the long-term care system in Ontario. [GN] WWE: Responds to Saudi Arabia Incident Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Matt Boone, writing for EWrestling, reports that WWE is currently dealing with multiple class action lawsuits against it and one filed by Firefighters Pension of System of the City of Kansas City Missouri Trust ended up featuring anonymous testimony from a wrestler who was among the April cuts who detailed an alleged "hostage situation" last November when WWE visited Saudi Arabia for their twice annual event. The wrestler, who apparently worked for WWE from 2012 until this year, also indicated that WWE abused their power and threatened careers when addressing any talent who didn't want to travel to Saudi Arabia to wrestle. WWE, through its third party attorney Jerry McDevitt at K&L Gates law firm, responded to the accusations with the following statements to Forbes: "These false allegations were originally made in two suits filed by two different law firms. After the Court appointed a third firm to be lead counsel, WWE provided all three law firms with specific detailed facts from the persons with actual knowledge of the situation, including the phony allegation about the plane. The first two law firms then dropped their lawsuits to avoid sanction motions, but the third firm chose to ignore the specific facts they had been provided, and instead cited an unnamed disgruntled former wrestler with no knowledge of the facts. WWE is preparing its response to the lawsuit and will be moving to have it dismissed." Other accusations against WWE in the suit include "wildly unreasonable expectations of the revenue it expected from a potential broadcast partner" and for the company misleading investors by blaming live event declines on talent injuries and absences. [GN] ZHEJIANG HUAHAI: Employers Suit Over Illegal VCDs Moved to D.N.J. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as EMPLOYERS AND LABORERS LOCALS 100 AND 397 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND and STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 439, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00125(Filed Jan. 1, 2020), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden) on June 15, 2020. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-07285 to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover for the economic harm caused by the Defendants as a result of the Plaintiffs' and other Class members' reimbursements for the Defendants' alleged adulterated, misbranded, and/or unapproved valsartan and valsartan-containing drugs (VCDs) illegally manufactured, sold, labeled, marketed and distributed in the United States as Food and Drug Administration-approved generic versions of Diovan, Diovan HCT, Exforge, and Exforge HCT. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and Class members' beneficiaries who ingested VCDs manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendants were exposed to N-nitrosodimethylamine, a probable human carcinogen, N-nitrosodiethylamine, a suspected human carcinogen, and potentially other unsafe, non-FDA-approved ingredients. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants knew or had reason to know that their VCDs were adulterated, misbranded, not FDA-approved, and would increase the risk of cancer to users. Valsartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker used to treat high blood pressure and heart failure. Valsartan and VCDs are generic versions of the branded registered listed drugs (RLDs) Diovan, Diovan HCT, Exforge, and/or Exforge HCT. The Plaintiffs and Class members are third-party payors private health insurance companies, third-party administrators, health maintenance organizations, municipalities or governmental entities health and welfare funds that make payments from their own funds and other health benefit providers and entities with self-funded plans that contract with health insurers or administrators to administer prescription drug benefits. The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies engaged in the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of VCDs in the United States. The Defendants include HUAHAI US INC.; PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL INC. d/b/a SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; SOLCO HEALTHCARE US, LLC; HETERO LABS, LTD.; HETERO DRUGS, LIMITED; HETERO USA INC.; CAMBER PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; MYLAN LABORATORIES, LTD.; MYLAN N.V.; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AUROBINDO PHARMA, LTD.; AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC.; AUROLIFE PHARMA, LLC; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; ARROW PHARM MALTA LTD.; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.; ACTAVIS, LLC; TORRENT PRIVATE LIMITED; TORRENT PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; TORRENT PHARMA, INC.; "JOHN DOE" WHOLESALERS; A-S MEDICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC; BRYANT RANCH PREPACK, INC.; H J HARKINS CO., INC. d/b/a PHARMA PAC; MAJOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; REMEDYREPACK, INC.; NORTHWIND PHARMACEUTICALS; NUCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; PREFERRED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; AVKARE, INC.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; WALMART INC.; RITE AID CORPORATION; THE KROGER, CO.; MEDICINE SHOPPE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; PRAXIS SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC; and "JOHN DOE" PHARMACIES.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Cates, Esq. CATES MAHONEY, LLC 216 W Pointe Drive, Suite A Swansea, IL 62226 Telephone: (618) 277-3644 Facsimile: (618) 277-7882 E-mail: DCates@cateslaw.com - and - Charles J. Baricevic, Esq. CHATHAM & BARICEVIC 107 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 233-2200 Facsimile: (618) 233-1589 E-mail: cj@chathamlaw.org - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: DLevin@lfsblaw.com CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com Nelia@lfsblaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com [*] City of Lethbridge Explores Opioid Crisis Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Lethbridge News Now reports that Mayor Chris Spearman introduced a motion on June 15 to formally give support to the City of Grande Prairie's $10-billion class action lawsuit against more than 40 pharmaceutical companies for their alleged role in the opioid crisis, saying "I don't believe there's a city in Alberta that's been more significantly impacted than Lethbridge." "These opioids were manufactured. Manufacturers encouraged doctors to prescribe them, and then what happened was, as people could no longer renew their prescriptions, they looked for illicit sources," explained Spearman. "The drug problem we have today basically originated in over-prescription and encouragement of the use of opioids, which are highly addictive." The lawsuit claims that these companies falsely and fraudulently marketed opioids as safe and non-addictive, failed to properly perform long-term studies on the effects of the drugs, and created a false perception of safety and value of opioids in the medical community. It is also alleged that distributors of the opioids failed to report suspicious orders, which are required by law, and that they dispensed, supplied, and sold prescription opioids without proper safeguards in place. As it stands, every municipality in Canada is a member of the lawsuit unless they opt-out. Council agreed to participate in the lawsuit on a contingency-fee basis, "which means that our costs would be paid out of any subsequent award." According to Spearman, there would be no cost to the taxpayers of Lethbridge for being a member. The mayor, however, suggested taking the city's involvement one step further. Like Grande Prairie, he proposed becoming a representative plaintiff in the case. A motion to explore the ramifications of doing so was approved 8-1 with only Councillor Joe Mauro voting in opposition. Representative plaintiffs would have the ability to share their experiences in court as a means of showing the impacts that the opioid crisis has had locally. The analogy used in council was whether we want to ride the bus or drive it. "The City of Lethbridge has an experience to offer which is unique -- here's what happens on a smaller-sized city. We're a city of 100,000 people and this is probably the most significant health crisis that we have faced in more than 100 years. The impact on the city, the cost to the residents, the cost to taxpayers, the cost to businesses has been significant." According to the latest Alberta Opioid Response Surveillance Report, 16 people in Lethbridge died as a result of accidental deaths related to fentanyl in 2019, while another four succumbed to opioids other than fentanyl. Between January 2016 and the end of 2019, there was 1,629 times where people sought emergency care at Chinook Regional Hospital due to opioid and other drug use. Spearman says he has spoken to the mayors of Grande Prairie, Edmonton, Red Deer, and Calgary about the lawsuit and hopes to continue to do so in the near future. It should be noted that the lawsuit is in the very early stages. City Solicitor Brian Loewen has been tasked with looking further into what becoming a representative plaintiff would entail, including responsibilities, liabilities, and any potential cost implications. A recommendation to council will be made in the near future. [GN] [*] Two Debt Collection Companies Avert TCPA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Dailey, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that two debt collection companies convinced an Indiana federal judge to toss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action claiming they sent more than 6,500 text messages to people who had already replied "stop," based on the Seventh Circuit's recent autodialer ruling. The evidence shows the companies used an autodialing system that sent texts to specific phone numbers gleaned from stored customer lists, similar to the one that the Seventh Circuit held isn't an "automatic telephone dialing system" under the TCPA, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana said on June 15. [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 ***