/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200812.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 12, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 161
Headlines
A.O. SMITH: Court Dismisses City of Birmingham Class Suit
ABBVIE INC: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Humira Antitrust Litigation
AMCOL SYSTEMS: Shorey Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
AMP LTD: Hit By Class Action Over Insurance Advice
ARENA NORTH AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cruz Claims
AUTOZONE: To Provide $48.9MM in Rewards to California Customers
B & R LYLES: Valle and Siegel Seek Proper Wage Pay for Baristas
BANK OF AMERICA: Prelim. Approval of $225K Boyd Deal Partly Granted
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
CAPITAL ONE: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Hutchens Suit
CENTRAL HEALTH: Class Action Launched After Recent Privacy Breach
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
COMODO GROUP: 3rd Circuit Appeal Terminated
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Bales Seeks Overtime Pay
CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Appeal v. $40MM Settlement in Carlin Suit Nixed
EARGO INC: Arslanian Sues Over Unsolicited Call & Text Message Ads
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
ENERGY HARBOR: Wolf Haldenstein Investigates Securities Claims
ENERGY RECOVERY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
ENERGY RECOVERY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 21 Deadline
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Hafez Sues over Drop in Credit Score
FACEBOOK INC: IntegrityMessageBoards.com May File FAC Under Seal
FIRST ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Securities Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Electric Customers Launch Class Action Lawsuit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Securities Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
FISERY INC: Durrant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FLORIDITA RESTAURANTS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Suit by Toloza et al.
FORESCOUT TECH: Court Consolidates Sayce-Arbitrage Securities Suits
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Soyinka FDCPA Suit
GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 8 Plaintiff Deadline
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Filing
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Says
IDEANOMICS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline
IMPINJ INC: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Plymouth Suit
IMPINJ INC: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in W.D. Wash. Suit
INSPERITY INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 21 Deadline
INTEL CORP: Howard G. Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
INTEL CORP: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
IROBOT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Massachusetts Suit Pending
JAGUAR LAND: TH Chiro Files Notice of Class Action Dismissal
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Brief in Opposition to Petition Due Today
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
LAUREN PATIN: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Brown Claims
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: Gunter Amends Suit on Tuition Refunds
LOUISIANA: Bar Owners Struggle, Join Class Action vs. Government
MAINE: Court Denies Denbow's Petition for TRO in Inmates Suit
MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Misener May Assert Two 14th Amendment Claims
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
MEIJI RESTAURANT: Comonfort Seeks Conditional Class Certification
MERCEDES-BENZ: Thompsons Solicitors Launch Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Kucur Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: George Floyd Activists File Class Suit v. Police
MORGAN STANLEY: Hit with Class Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breaches
MOTION PICTURE: Mishandles ERISA Plan, Endries et al. Claim
MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 25 Deadline
NEBRASKA: Court Refuses to Certify Inmates Classes in Sabata Suit
NEW DIRECTIONS: M.D. Florida Narrows Claims in Hering Breach Suit
NOVO NORDISK: 3rd Circuit Appeal Terminated
P.F. CHANG'S: Chansue Kang Appeal to Ninth Circuit Underway
PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL: Chamely Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Appeal from Dismissal of Sgarlata Suit Ongoing
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Wins Bid to Deny Class Cert. in Pruitt Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
PLAYAGS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bracken Says Collection Letter 'Deceptive'
PRIMARY RESPONSE: Settles Wage Class Action for $2.9 Million
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Settles ERISA Class Action for $5.8 Million
PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
PROSHARES ULTRA: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Class Action Filing
QUAKERTOWN AUTO: Underpays Laborers, Alvarado Claims
RADIUS GLOBAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Amer Suit
RAUSCH STURM: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Macedonia Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
SFM LLC: Knudson Sues Over Failure to Provide Suitable Seats
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Wage-Meal Class Suit
SIX FLAGS: Still Faces Class Suit Over Staff Overtime, Rest Breaks
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Bid for Initial Settlement Approval Denied
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Leon Must Notify Class Members, Court Says
TACO BELL: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cota Claims
TAX RISE: Sadr-Arhami Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
TD GENERAL: Has Unique Defense to 'Business Interruption' Lawsuits
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Garity et al. Sue over Merger Deal
TGI FRIDAY'S: Court Narrows Claims in Troncoso Consumer Suit
TOTAL GAS: Court Dismisses Long Beach Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
U.S. BANCORP: Cal. App. Flips Williams Wage & Hour Suit Dismissal
U.S. OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
UNITED STATES OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Class of Immigration Detainees Certified in Gayle
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action From Lieff Cabraser and EJS
UNIV. OF THE INCARNATE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hedges Says
USDA: Agriculture Secretary Sued over SNAP Emergency Allotments
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
WAL-MART STORE: Evans Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
WAWA INC: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Data Security Action
WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline
WELLS FARGO: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
WILLIS TOWERS: Alaska Laborers Class Suit Underway in Delaware
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Class Certification in Proxy Suit Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Defends Aon Acquisition Related Suits
WILLIS TOWERS: Opposition to Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 14
WINS FINANCE: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
WINS FINANCE: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Securities Class Action
WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman to File Amended Complaint
XEROX CORP: Renewed Motion to Intervene in Ribbe Suit Denied
YALE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Lawsuit Over Tuition Refunds
[*] Securities Class-Action Suits Declined in First Half of 2020
*********
A.O. SMITH: Court Dismisses City of Birmingham Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-C-1198 (E.D. Wis.), Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i) granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); and (ii) granted in part and denied
without prejudice in part the Defendants' motion to consider
documents not attached to the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an institutional investor serving as the Lead
Plaintiff in a proposed class action under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") against A.O. Smith Corp. ("AOS")
and some of its officers and directors. The complaint alleges that
AOS and the other Defendants committed securities fraud in three
respects: by concealing what the plaintiff describes as a classic
channel stuffing scheme, by failing to disclose a material
customer, and by failing to disclose in its financial statements an
agreement to repurchase certain inventory from its distributors in
China.
AOS is a publicly traded company that manufactures and sells water
heaters, boilers, water treatment products, and air purifiers.
Most of its sales are to customers in the United States and China.
The Plaintiff's allegations arise out of AOS' business in China.
Between 2014 and 2016, AOS's Chinese sales rose rapidly and became
an important part of the company's financial success. The
Plaintiff alleges that, in February 2017, AOS' growth in China
began to decline. The decline culminated in poor financial results
that the Company began disclosing after the close of the first
quarter of 2019 but allegedly did not fully disclose until June
2019. The Plaintiff alleges that, between February 17, 2017 and
May 28, 2019, the price of AOS' stock was inflated due to the
Defendants' fraudulent activity. The alleged fraud consisted of a
channel-stuffing scheme and AOS' failure to disclose certain
matters about how it conducted business in China.
Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
To evaluate the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's complaint, Judge
Adelman divides her analysis into three parts. First, she examines
whether the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that the Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent channel-stuffing scheme. Second, she
examines whether the Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that the
Defendants committed fraud by failing to disclose UTP in its
class-period SEC filings. Finally, she examines whether the
Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that the Defendants committed
fraud by failing to disclose AOS' repurchase obligation to Chinese
banks in its class-period financial statements.
Judge Adelman concludes that the complaint does not adequately
allege that AOS or its managers made false or misleading statements
or omissions concerning AOS' channel inventory during the class
period. Because the Plaintiff does not allege that AOS accepted
returns of channel inventory, and because AOS repeatedly disclosed
its high channel inventory, the Plaintiff has not pleaded that AOS
engaged in a classic channel-stuffing scheme. The Plaintiff has
not also pleaded that AOS generated phony sales by shipping unsold
products to UTP and dressing them up as sales to customers.
Finally, the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that AOS
represented that it had only $25 million of excess channel
inventory at a time when it actually had $140 million.
Next, because the complaint does not plead facts suggesting that
AOS had a duty to disclose UTP under Item 101, it does not
adequately allege that AOS' failure to disclose UTP was misleading.
Judge Adelman finds that the Plaintiff has not filled the gap in
the JCap report with information that it learned through its own
investigation. None of the confidential witnesses that the
Plaintiff interviewed provides information about the quantity of
sales AOS made to UTP. Also, nothing in the 8-K suggests that AOS'
sales to UTP amounted to 10% or more of the company's consolidated
revenues.
Finally, Judge Adelman finds that the complaint does not plead a
strong inference of scienter in connection with the alleged GAAP
violations. First, the Plaintiff does not even allege that any
Chinese distributors defaulted on their obligations to UTP during
the class period. In the absence of a default by a distributor, it
is hard to see how AOS could be charged with knowledge of a
reasonable possibility that it may have incurred a loss under its
repurchase obligations to Chinese banks. And, even if the
complaint had adequately alleged that AOS' class-period financial
statements violated GAAP and were misleading due to their failure
to disclose the repurchase obligations, the claim would fail
because the complaint does not plead that any GAAP violation was
committed with scienter. Not a single fact alleged in the
complaint suggests that AOS' management knew or was reckless in
disregarding a substantial risk that GAAP required the company to
disclose its repurchase obligations in its financial statements.
Because the complaint does not adequately plead that AOS made
statements or omissions that were false or misleading or adequately
plead that any such statements or omissions were made with
scienter, Judge Adelman will grant the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. However, because a district court generally
must consider granting a Plaintiff at least one opportunity to
amend a deficient complaint, she will allow the the Plaintiff to
move for leave to file an amended complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15 and Civil Local Rule 15.
In its motion, the Plaintiff must explain how the proposed amended
complaint cures the problems identified. Under Civil Local Rule
7(b)-(c), the Defendants will have an opportunity to file a
response to any such motion, and then the Plaintiff may file a
reply. If the Judge determines that the proposed amended complaint
does not state a claim, then she will deny leave to amend on the
ground that granting such leave would be futile. If the Plaintiff
chooses not to seek leave to amend, then she will enter judgment
for the Defendants.
Accordingly, Judge Adelman granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. However, the Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to
amend. The Judge granted the Defendants' motion to consider
documents not attached to the complaint insofar as it relates to
Exhibits 1-37 of ECF No. 25. She denied the motion in all other
respects without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 24, 2020 Decision & Order is
available at https://is.gd/EYd0d8 from Leagle.com.
ABBVIE INC: N.D. Illinois Dismisses Humira Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned IN RE: HUMIRA (ADALIMUMAB)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 19 CV 1873 (N.D. Ill.).
Humira is an anti-inflammatory biologic (a drug derived from living
organisms that helps slow down overactive immune systems).
Originally developed for rheumatoid arthritis, Humira is now used
to treat a variety of auto-immune disorders ranging from Crohn's
disease to plaque psoriasis.
Defendant AbbVie Inc. makes a lot of money selling the prescription
drug Humira. One reason for Humira's profitability is that AbbVie's
Humira-related patents (more than a hundred) make it difficult (if
not impossible) to sell competing drugs. Another reason may be that
the Food and Drug Administration's lengthy approval process imposes
additional costs on competitors hoping to reach the market. Still a
third reason might be the expensive, complicated, and contentious
patent infringement litigation that often follows on the heels of
FDA approval.
The Plaintiffs, indirect purchasers of Humira, allege a different
reason: AbbVie cornered the market for Humira and other biosimilar
drugs through anticompetitive conduct. They say that AbbVie and its
subsidiary, AbbVie Biotechnology, Ltd., applied for, obtained, and
asserted patents to gain the power it needed to elbow its
competitors the other defendants in this case, Amgen, Inc., Samsung
Bioepis Co., Ltd., and Sandoz, Inc. out of the Humira market in the
United States, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and
then entered into agreements with those competitors to keep their
competing drugs off the market, in violation of Section 1. In
return, AbbVie gave those competitors permission to market their
drugs in Europe, where AbbVie also possessed an imposing patent
portfolio that blocked competition.
District Judge Manish S. Shah notes that the legal and regulatory
backdrop for patented biologic drugs, together with a
well-resourced litigation strategy, gave AbbVie the ability to
maintain control over Humira. The Plaintiffs say that AbbVie's plan
to extend its power over Humira amounts to a scheme to violate
federal and state antitrust laws.
But what the Plaintiffs describe is not an antitrust violation,
Judge Shah opines. AbbVie has exploited advantages conferred on it
through lawful practices and to the extent this has kept prices
high for Humira, existing antitrust doctrine does not prohibit it.
Much of AbbVie's petitioning was protected by the Noerr-Pennington
doctrine, and the Plaintiffs' theory of antitrust injury is too
speculative, Judge Shah explains.
"Because the federal antitrust claims fail, the state antitrust
claims fail, too. And although the complaint is lengthy and
detailed, its application to state statutes that prohibit unfair
and unconscionable conduct falls short. The complaint is dismissed
without prejudice," Judge Shah ruled.
The Plaintiffs shall file a status report with a statement of
whether they intend to file an amended complaint, or if they
instead prefer that the dismissal convert to a dismissal with
prejudice so they may seek appellate review.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4jzbyu from
Leagle.com.
AMCOL SYSTEMS: Shorey Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JAMES SHOREY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. AMCOL SYSTEMS
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01163-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed
a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent
against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants
sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a
decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named
plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not
classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
AMP LTD: Hit By Class Action Over Insurance Advice
--------------------------------------------------
Journal Pioneer reports that wealth manager AMP Ltd said it had
been served with a class action over advice provided in relation to
certain life and other insurance products, the second lawsuit in as
many days.
Australia's Federal Court in February ordered AMP to pay a A$5.2
million (US$3.73 million) penalty for failing to prevent incorrect
insurance advice by financial planners after the country's
corporate watchdog sued the firm in 2018.
AMP admitted to the case against it in May last year.
Some financial advisers filed a class action against the Australian
wealth manager related to changes in its 'buyer of last resort'
policy.
These class actions follow a tumultuous year for AMP after it was
named in a bruising public inquiry into finance sector misconduct
in 2019 where it was accused of improperly charging fees and
attempting to deceive regulators.
The company said its units AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd and
Hillross Financial Services Ltd would defend the proceedings.
AMP's shares closed 0.6% lower. [GN]
ARENA NORTH AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Cruz Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAEL CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ARENA NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05824-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City
Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, who
uses a computer with the assistance of screen-reading software, and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff visited Defendant's website
in June 2020 to potentially make a purchase. However, Plaintiff was
effective barred from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of Defendant's public accommodation because it lack
variety of features and accommodations which denied Plaintiff and
other visually-impaired persons access equal to that of a sighted
individual.
The complaint alleges that Defendant failed to maintain and operate
its website in a way to make it fully accessible for Plaintiff and
for other blind or visually-impaired people.
Arena North America, LLC is a swimsuit and competitive swimwear
company that owns and operates the website,
www.arenawaterinstinct.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Email: Joseph@cml.legal
AUTOZONE: To Provide $48.9MM in Rewards to California Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP and Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman LLP
announce entry and final approval of a class action settlement
concerning AutoZone's Rewards program.
Under the settlement, AutoZone will reinstate and/or issue more
than $48.9 million in AutoZone Rewards to approximately 4.8 million
customers who were members of AutoZone's Rewards program in
California before AutoZone's National Plan Conversion, which took
place over late 2014 and early 2015.
The class action lawsuit, filed in August of 2016 in Los Angeles
Superior Court, alleged that AutoZone improperly changed the terms
of its Rewards program to cause program members to lose both
Rewards and Credits which could be used to earn Rewards. The Court
approved the settlement and entered final judgment on July 29,
2020.
"We are very proud of this result," said Waskowski Johnson Yohalem
LLP partner Seth Yohalem, who served as lead class counsel. "Under
the settlement, every class member who lost a Reward will receive a
Reward of equal value. Every class member who lost a Credit will
receive a Reward which can be used immediately without making
additional purchases."
"It is a great result for the class of California consumers we have
had the honor to serve," echoed Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman LLP's
litigation chair Todd Bonder.
AutoZone must reinstate or issue the Rewards by August 29, 2020.
The Rewards will be valid for 12 months after they are
reinstated/issued.
Subject to a small number of exceptions, the Rewards that AutoZone
must reinstate and/or issue can be used in place of cash at
AutoZone, including to purchase a wide variety of items priced at
equal or lesser value without any obligation to pay money out of
pocket. Class members will be able to use their Rewards either in
person or online.
Members of the public can see if they are part of the class and
what they will receive from the settlement by visiting the
settlement website, https://www.azrewardslitigation.com/, and
entering either their AutoZone Rewards account number or the
telephone number they used to create the account. The settlement
website contains additional information about the case.
The case is Hughes et al. v. AutoZone Parts, Inc. et al., Case No.
BC 631080. Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP is a law firm based in
Chicago, Illinois. Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman LLP is a law firm
based in Beverly Hills, California.
Seth Yohalem
Partner
Waskowski Johnson Yohalem LLP
Tel: 312-278-3153
E-mail: syohalem@wjylegal.com [GN]
B & R LYLES: Valle and Siegel Seek Proper Wage Pay for Baristas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Valerie Valle and Keely Siegel, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. B & R Lyles
Enterprises LLC d/b/a Bikini Beans, an Arizona limited liability
company; Benjamin Lyles and Regina Lyles, a married couple,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01513-DLR (D. Ariz., July 30, 2020)
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
Arizona Minimum Wage Act ("AMWA") as a result of Defendants'
failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees all
earned minimum and overtime wages.
Defendants violated the FLSA and AMWA by paying making improper
deductions from Plaintiffs' and the Manager Collective Members'
wages, which brought their wages below the applicable minimum wage.
Defendants also violated the FLSA and AMWA by paying Plaintiffs and
the Barista Collective Members a sub-minimum, tip-credit wages
without allowing them to retain all of the tips they earned.
Plaintiff Valle worked as a barista at the Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa
Locations and as a manager at the Phoenix and Mesa Locations from
approximately May 2016 until approximately January 2019.
Plaintiff Siegel serves in the capacity of a representative
Plaintiff on behalf of the Barista Collective Members and the
Barista Class Members for the time she spent working for Defendants
as a Barista from approximately January 2019 until approximately
July 2019.
B & R Lyles Enterprises LLC owns and operates a chain of
drive-through coffee shops in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area of
Arizona that does business as Bikini Beans.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
chris@bendaulaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Prelim. Approval of $225K Boyd Deal Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN G. BOYD, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. C18-1207 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted in part, deferred in part, and renoted to Aug. 7,
2020 the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.
In the action, Plaintiff Boyd, who was employed as a mortgage
broker or lending officer on a commission basis, sued Defendant
Bank of America on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, for allegedly improper deductions of funds advanced for
rest breaks and non-sales work. The Plaintiff alleged that such
deductions constituted both a breach of contract and a willful
refusal to pay wages in violation of Washington law.
The parties have engaged in mediation and reached a settlement.
Although less than clear, the terms of the parties' settlement
appear to be as follows. The parties propose a settlement fund of
$225,000, which will be used to pay (i) attorney's fees (up to 30%
of the fund or $67,500); (ii) roughly $8,000 in litigation costs;
(iii) $5,000 in incentive fees to the named Plaintiff; and (iv)
approximately $13,500 in settlement administration expenses,
leaving a net settlement fund of about $131,000 to be allocated pro
rata among 376 class members, who are persons with certain job
codes employed in Washington by defendant or a related entity from
August 12, 2012, to the present. The "Settling Class" is defined
as all persons who are or have been employed in job codes SM009,
SM171, SM172, SM603, SM604, SM605, SM610, SM611, SM612, and/or
SM614 by Bank of America, N.A. and/or Bank of America Corporation
in the State of Washington at any time from 08/12/2012 to the date
of Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.
The parties propose to distribute the net proceeds on the basis of
"Compensable Weeks," meaning weeks that the class members were
"actively employed" by the Defendant during the class period, but
discounting to one-twentieth any Compensable Week that overlaps
with the settlement in Flanagan v. Bank of America, N.A., Suffolk
County, N.Y. Supreme Court Case No. 613647/2018. They contemplate
that a settlement or claims administrator will compute the total
number of Compensable Weeks among all the class members who have
not excluded themselves, and will then divide that figure into the
net settlement amount to determine the Per Week Payment. Each
participating class member will receive the product of his or her
number of Compensable Weeks multiplied by the Per Week Payment,
minus income taxes that must be withheld and remitted to the
Internal Revenue Service.
The parties have not provided any estimates for the sums that
individual class members might expect to receive from the
settlement. The Court, however, has been able to ascertain as
follows. If the anticipated net proceeds of the settlement
($131,000) were distributed equally among the 376 class members,
then each individual would receive approximately $348, minus
withheld income taxes.
On the other hand, under the proposed pro rata scheme, assuming
that the Defendant's pre-mediation disclosure of a class-wide total
of 32,507 Compensable Workweeks is accurate, then the Per Week
Payment would be $4.02 per week, and the range of recoveries would
be between $4.02 for a class member who worked only one week during
the class period and $1,672.32 for an individual who worked each of
the 52 weeks of each of the approximately eight years of the class
period. The Court does not intend for these values to be binding
in any way; they are set forth merely for the purpose of evaluating
the reasonableness of the proposed class action settlement.
According to the Plaintiff's counsel, the total amount of damages
suffered by the class was roughly $625,714. The Plaintiff's
counsel reached the conclusion by assuming that each class member
missed two ten-minute rest breaks each day, on each of the five
days of a Compensable Week, and that such missed breaks should be
compensated at an overtime rate because they extended the work day.
The uncompensated time was converted to a monetary figure by using
the average hourly wage among the various job titles at issue. If
the Plaintiff's counsel's estimate is apportioned equally among the
class members, then each individual could be viewed as being owed
$1,664 in back wages. The amount is actually less than the top of
the range of potential individual recoveries from the settlement.
Based on this understanding of how the anticipated distributions of
the settlement proceeds compare with the damages that might have
been awarded if the Plaintiff prevailed on the merits in the
litigation, Judge Zilly granted in part, deffered in part, and
renoted to Aug. 7, 2020 the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
He certified for settlement purposes the following Class: All
persons who are or have been employed in job codes SM009, SM171,
SM172, SM603, SM604, SM605, SM610, SM611, SM612, and/or SM614 by
Bank of America, N.A. and/or Bank of America Corporation in the
State of Washington at any time from Aug. 12, 2012, to the date of
the Order.
The Judge appointed (i) Plaintiff Boyd as the Class Representative,
(ii) Joshua H. Haffner and Graham C. Lambert of Haffner Law PC as
the class counsel, and (iii) Rust Consulting, Inc. as the
Settlement (or Claims) Administrator.
The Settlement Agreement executed by the parties is preliminarily
approved with two exceptions. The preliminary approval is subject
to change pending further submissions of the parties and the
outcome of a hearing on final approval of the proposed class action
settlement.
The Settlement Agreement refers to an Adjustment Form that each
class member will receive in addition to the notice of the proposed
settlement. The Adjustment Form will provide individualized
information concerning a class member's Compensable Weeks and
estimated pro rata share of the settlement proceeds. The
Settlement Agreement requires that the class notice tells the class
members how to request corrections to the Adjustment Form. The
proposed form of class notice, however, makes no mention of the
Adjustment Form.
The Settlement Agreement further indicates that "Settling Class
Members will be instructed that they must return the completed
Adjustment Form with a postmark reflecting a date within 60
calendar days from the date of first mailing of the Settlement
Class Notice," and that, if a class member provides both an
Adjustment Form and an opt-out form, the one submitted later in
time will control. The Judge declined to approve any provision of
the Settlement Agreement that requires class members to "opt in" to
the settlement by mailing an Adjustment Form to the Settlement or
Claims Administrator. The Adjustment Forms may be provided to the
class members for informational purposes, to help them understand
what they might expect from the settlement, and to permit them to
challenge the accuracy of the data set forth, but the Adjustment
Forms may not be used as a prerequisite for obtaining a share of
the settlement proceeds.
The Settlement Agreement states that, if any settlement checks are
not cashed or any portion of the settlement funds are not
distributed, any residual amount will be paid to the Legal
Foundation of Washington. The Judge deferred ruling with regard to
this provision of the Settlement Agreement. A cy pres beneficiary
must be tethered to the nature of the lawsuit and the interests of
the silent class members. The parties bear the burden of
demonstrating the appropriateness of their selection of any cy pres
recipient, and they have not done so.
The Judge also deferred the scheduling of a hearing on final
approval of the proposed class action settlement until after the
parties file (i) appropriate amendments to their Settlement
Agreement, addressing the issues identified, and (ii) a revised
proposed notice to class members, incorporating the following
changes:
(a) Adjustment Form: As indicated, notwithstanding the
Settlement Agreement's requirement that the notice inform the class
members about the accompanying Adjustment Form, the current form of
notice does not mention the Adjustment Form. The parties will
include in their revised proposed class notice language about the
Adjustment Form that is consistent with the Order and any
amendments to the Settlement Agreement that are adopted by the
parties.
(b) Calculating Pro Rata Shares: The current proposed notice
does not provide sufficient information for class members to
understand how the amounts they will be entitled to receive from
this settlement will be calculated. Reference to the Settlement
Agreement as containing the exact allocation formula is inadequate.
The notice should instead outline the method for computing pro
rata shares, including the specific amounts that are anticipated to
be deducted from the gross settlement fund, state the range of
recoveries, and provide at least one concrete example.
(c) Implying Imprimatur: The current class notice contains
statements that might unduly dissuade the class members from
objecting or otherwise exercising their rights, as well as phrases
giving the misimpression that the Court has already approved
certain elements of the proposed settlement. The parties are
encouraged to instead use passive voice or conditional language.
(d) Correspondence: The proposed form of notice tells the
class members that they should write to the Court, which might
cause confusion about where correspondence should be directed. All
correspondence, including opt-out forms, objections, and Adjustment
Form corrections, should be sent to the Settlement Administrator,
and the class members should not submit any settlement-related
documents directly to the Court. The parties are urged to omit the
Court from their instructions to the class members.
(e) Class Counsel: The current class notice indicates that the
Court has decided certain lawyers are qualified to represent class
members. Only one of the half-dozen law firms listed, however, is
the Class Counsel, and the Court has made no such ruling. In
addition, the proposed form of notice states that the class members
will not be charged for the services of Classthe Counsel. This
statement is not accurate. The Class Counsel's fees are being
deducted from the gross awards due to class members under the
settlement. Moreover, although the proposed form of notice
describes the Class Counsel's intent to request attorney's fees of
up to 30% of the settlement fund, the dollar figure associated with
the anticipated motion is nowhere stated.
The revised proposed notice must set forth the amounts of
attorney's fees and costs that the Class Counsel will request and
advise the class members that a copy of the motion may be viewed on
the Class Counsel's website and at the website maintained by the
Settlement Administrator for this litigation. The motion for
attorney's fees and costs must be filed with the Court and uploaded
to the websites by the date that notices to the class members are
mailed. The appropriate noting date for such motion will be
addressed when the final settlement approval hearing is scheduled.
(f) Cy Pres Recipient: The current proposed notice has no
provision concerning the disposition of uncashed or unclaimed
checks. The revised form of notice must describe the timing on
which checks will be deemed uncashed or unclaimed, identify the
proposed cy pres recipient, and advise class members that they may
object to the cy pres recipient even if they have no other
objection to the settlement.
(g) Websites: The current form of notice has no placeholder
for either the Class Counsel's website or the Settlement
Administrator's website. The revised proposed class notice will
prominently set forth both website addresses, and will advise the
class members that they may obtain a copy of the Settlement
Agreement and other materials relating to the litigation, including
a copy of the pleadings and the Order, by visiting the Settlement
Administrator's website.
(h) Hearing Logistics: The Court will not require the class
members to indicate in advance that they wish to be heard at the
hearing concerning final approval of the proposed settlement, and
the parties will revise the class notice accordingly. Moreover, if
the final settlement approval hearing needs to be rescheduled or if
it must be conducted remotely via telephone or videoconference, the
counsel will be advised and notice will be posted in advance on the
Court's website. A specific webpage address for inclusion in the
class notice will be provided at a later date.
(i) Opt-Out Forms: The current form of notice instructs the
class members to send a letter to the Settlement Administrator if
they wish to be excluded from the Class. The parties are directed
to craft a suitable opt-out form, which will be appended to the
revised proposed class notice. The notice will indicate that the
class members may exclude themselves by sending a completed and
signed opt-out form to the Settlement Administrator. They may also
opt out via letter with the components outlined in the current
proposed notice to the class.
By the new noting date for the pending motion (Aug. 7, 2020), the
parties will file supplemental materials that are consistent with
the Order, including any amendments to the settlement documents, a
revised proposed notice to the class with appended opt-out form,
and a sample Adjustment Form.
The Court directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to all the
counsel of record.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 8, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NGXrGJ from Leagle.com.
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of the
pending deadline in the Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY) securities
class action lawsuit:
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/
If you purchased shares of the above company 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 link 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
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.
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following
companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTCMKT:BAYRY)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?prid=8308&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
Lawsuit on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bayer American Depositary Receipts between May
23, 2016 and March 19, 2019.
Allegations against BAYRY include that: 1) following its
acquisition of Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at risk of
suffering billions of dollars in judgments and reputational damage
if the lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that exposure to
its glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were successful,
2) a result, Defendants' positive statements about the prospects of
the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would create for
Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Wins Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Hutchens Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Richmond Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the cases captioned
NANNETTE HUTCHENS, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendant, and VIRGINIA STIRNWEIS, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:19cv546, 3:19cv637
(E.D. Va.).
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.
The matters arise from the Plaintiffs' employment with and
subsequent termination by Capital One. Hutchens, a former Project
Manager/Program Manager/IT Delivery Lead for Capital One, asserts
that Capital One failed to comply with the statutory requirements
of the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA) when Capital
One terminated her employment, and that Capital One discriminated
against her because of her age in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Ms. Stirnweis, a former "Corporate Insurance Specialist" at Capital
One, brings claims for "unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act." When Capital One terminated their employment,
both Plaintiffs had executed severance agreements, (the "Severance
Agreements"), which contained identical language purporting to
waive their right to bring a collective or class action (the
"Collective Action Waiver").
Although the Plaintiffs bring their Complaints on an individual
basis, each seeks a declaratory judgment that they may proceed in a
collective action against Capital One. Capital One asserts that the
Collective Action Waiver binds the Plaintiffs and forecloses a
class claim; The Plaintiffs contend that the Collective Action
Waiver is invalid under federal law, and that the plain language of
the Collective Action Waiver does not apply to the claims in their
respective Complaints. On December 18, 2019, the Court ordered the
Parties to file cross-briefs concerning the validity of the
Collective Action Waiver under the FLSA and the ADEA.
According to the Memorandum Opinion, the Court grants Capital One's
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings because the Court is
constrained to find that the Collective Action Waiver contained
within the Severance Agreements is valid under federal law. The
plain language of the Severance Agreements, as many courts have
recognized, forbid Hutchens and Stirnweis from bringing their
respective FLSA and ADEA claims on a collective basis.
The Court denies the Plaintiffs' claims seeking a declaratory
judgment that the Collective Action Waiver is invalid, but will
allow the Plaintiffs' individual claims against Capital One under
the OWBPA, ADEA and FLSA to proceed.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7e2bsm from
Leagle.com.
CENTRAL HEALTH: Class Action Launched After Recent Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
vocm.com reports that a class action lawsuit is being launched
against Central Health in relation to a recent privacy breach
within the health authority.
The lawsuit is being launched by Bob Buckingham Law in conjunction
with the firm of Eli Baker Law Office against Central Health.
In a release issued, Buckingham's firm says it has been contacted
and asked to represent patients whose privacy was breached.
Central Health has indicated that the staff person who accessed the
information is no longer working with the health authority.
Buckingham says of concern is an "apparent pattern" respecting the
type of medical records accessed, refusing to elaborate further.
He says clients will be seeking appropriate compensation and
guarantees that the systems are in place to protect patient medical
records in future.
Buckingham calls it "disappointing and disconcerting" to see such
an incident and says anyone who has received notification of the
privacy breach by the Central Health Authority has the right to
know how their personal, confidential, and private health records
were violated. [GN]
CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CEMI) between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important August 17, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Chembio investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Chembio class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1883.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) Chembio's Dual Path Platform ("DPP") COVID-19 serological
point-of-care test did not provide high-quality results and there
were material performance concerns with the accuracy of the
Company's DPP COVID-19 test; (2) Chembio's DPP COVID-19 test
generates a higher than expected rate of false results and higher
than that reflected in the authorized labeling for the device, and
was not effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19; (3)
accordingly, it was not reasonable to believe that the test may be
effective in detecting antibodies against COVID-19 and, as a
result, there was a material risk to public health from the false
test results; (4) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to have a material negative impact on Chembio's financial
results; and (5) as a result, Chembio's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 17,
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-1883.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
CO-DIAGNOSTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Co-Diagnostics, Inc. ("Co-Diagnostics") (NASDAQ:
CODX) between February 25, 2020 and May 15, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/co-diagnostics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8316&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
According to the filed complaint, Co-Diagnostics and its directors
and officers (including PhD-level scientists who should know
better) made continual, knowing, and willful misstatements about
the Company's main product, a Covid-19 diagnostic test. These
misstatements had the effect of pumping up the price of
Co-Diagnostics' stock while Company officers and directors
exercised low-priced options and dumped their stock into the
market. Co-Diagnostics' fraudulent misstatements displayed a
disregard for basic scientific principles and caused investors to
lose millions of dollars.
If you suffered a loss in Co-Diagnostics you have until August 17,
2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
COMODO GROUP: 3rd Circuit Appeal Terminated
-------------------------------------------
Comodo Group Inc. filed an appeal from a District Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Michael Johnson v. Comodo Group Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2-16-cv-04469 (Filed July 22, 2016), in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
The appellate case was captioned as Michael Johnson v. Comodo Group
Inc., et al. Case No. 20-8015 (Filed Feb 14, 2020), in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The appeal was later terminated on May 11.
Comodo is a cybersecurity company headquartered in Clifton, New
Jersey in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Respondent Michael Johnson, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Sofia Balile, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: 917 981 6237
The Defendant-Petitioner Comodo Group Inc. and Comodo CA Inc. are
represented by:
Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: 212 248-3191
- and -
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
Paul A. Rosenthal, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
Parsippany, NJ 07054
- and -
Charles J. Falletta, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, Esq.
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS
One Riverfront Plaza, 11th Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 973 643 7000
The Intervenor-Respondent United States of America is represented
by:
Jonathan Kossak, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1100 L Street North West, Room 12302
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202 305-0612
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Bales Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
JOHNNY BALES, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CRESTWOOF MIDSTREAM PARTNERS LP, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-02654 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2020) is a collective action
complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged unlawful policy
of paying its Inspectors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Senior Craft Inspector from
approximately December 2018 until October 2019.
Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated Day Rate
Inspectors regularly worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours
each week. However, Defendant improperly paid them a daily rate
with no overtime compensation for all hours that they worked over
40 in a workweek throughout their employment.
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP owns and operates midstream oil and
gas assets and provides oil and gas storage, processing, supply,
logistics, and transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-352-1100
Fax: 713-352-3300
Emails: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
cfitz@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: 713-877-8788
Fax: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CUATRO T CONSTRUCTION: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT DIAZ, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CUATRO T
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00231-OLG (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Orlando L. Garcia entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act section 216 and authorizing the
Plaintiff's counsel, Lawrence Morales II and Allison S.
Hartry of The Morales Firm, P.C., to issue opt-in notices
and consent forms to the following Class:
"current and former drivers for Cuatro T Construction who
worked for more than 30 days during the two-year period
prior to [the date on which the Order conditionally
certifying the class is entered] and who did not drive at
least two interstate trips during any one year of
employment";
2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs'
counsel in a usable electronic format no later than 10
days from the entry of the Court's Order: the names, last-
known residential addresses, last-known mobile telephone
number, and dates of employment (Employee Information) of
all employees who meet the parameters of the Class. If
Defendant fails to provide the Employee Information within
10 days of the entry of this Order, the statute of
limitations is tolled for each day after the 10th day that
the Defendant fails to provide the Employee Information;
3. authorizing that the Notice and Consent to Join may
immediately be issued to the Class Members;
4. directing that the envelope, in which the aforementioned
Notice and Consent to Join shall be mailed, states on the
outside of the envelope in regular or bold typeface:
"Important--Notice of Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit Against
Cuatro T Construction.";
5. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to send notice via text
message to the putative class member in the form:
"If you are a current or former driver for Cuatro T
Construction, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit
for unpaid overtime. For additional information about
the case, including how to join, contact Allison
Hartry, attorney for the drivers who have joined, at
210-225-0811 or ahartry@themoralesfirm.com."
6. providing the putative class members, 60 days after the
Notice and Consent to Join are initially sent to file a
Consent to Join form opting in to this litigation (Opt-In
Period);
7. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to send the putative
class members a reminder notice, via U.S. mail and text,
half-way through the 60-day notice period;
8. directing the Plaintiff to provide the Court and opposing
counsel with a notice indicating the date on which the
Notice and Consent to Join forms were initially sent out
so the Court and the Parties are advised of the beginning
of the opt-in period;
9. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to record the date on
which the Consent to Join is received in counsel's office
and shall retain any envelope or other evidence showing
the date the Consent to Join was post-marked, fax-stamped
or received by Plaintiff's counsel; and
10. directing the Plaintiff's counsel shall to file Consent
to Join forms for the Opt-In Plaintiffs within three
business days following the Plaintiff's receipt of such
forms, noting the received date for each such form on the
Notice of Filing.
Cuatro T provides trucking services.[CC]
DAIRYAMERICA INC: Appeal v. $40MM Settlement in Carlin Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum dismissing an appeal filed in the case captioned GERALD
CARLIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. JOHN SPOONER, et al.,
Objectors-Appellants v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., CALIFORNIA DAIRIES,
INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-16166 (9th Cir.).
The Objectors appeal the District Court's order approving a $40
million class action settlement between the Plaintiffs-Appellees (a
class of almost 26,000 dairy farmers) and the Defendants-Appellees
DairyAmerica, Inc. and California Dairies, Inc. (Appellees).
The Appellate Court notes that there is no valid notice of appeal
in this case. The District Court struck the objectors' notice of
appeal for failure to comply with local and federal rules because
it was signed only by the objectors' attorney, who was neither
admitted to the Bar of the Eastern District of California nor
permitted to appear in the case pro hac vice. The Objectors did not
appeal the District Court's order striking the notice of appeal or
seek to cure the notice's deficiencies.
A valid notice of appeal is the mechanism that transfers
jurisdiction from the district court to the court of appeals.
Because there is no valid notice of appeal, the Appellate Court
dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 1, 2020 Order is
https://tinyurl.com/y8kfzz5c from Leagle.com.
EARGO INC: Arslanian Sues Over Unsolicited Call & Text Message Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ARSLANIAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARGO, INC., a Delaware
Corporation and EARGO HEARING INC., a California Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05109-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2020)
is a class action complaint brought against Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint alleges that Defendant conducted a wide scale
telemarketing campaign by repeatedly making unsolicited autodialed
calls and sending unsolicited text messages to consumers'
cellular/wireless telephones without their prior express written
consent, including Plaintiff, thereby causing them actual harm.
Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his phone number or other
contact information to Defendant and does not have a relationship
with Defendant, yet he received autodialed call from Defendant's
representative on or around August 12, 2019, a text message on
November 26, 2020 advertising a "Black Friday" offer, and a text
message on December 6, 2019 advertising an extended Cyber Monday
sales offer.
Eargo is a technology company that offers different hearing aid
products to persons who are hearing impaired or have other hearing
issues. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Davis, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 836-4200
Fax: (510) 836-4205
Email: rebecca@lozeaudrury.com
- and –
Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Tel: (720) 213-0675
Fax: (303) 927-0809
Email: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Endo International Plc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
ENDP Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/endo-international-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=8432&wire=1
Endo International Plc (NASDAQ:ENDP)
ENDP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 8, 2017 -
June 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/endo-international-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=8432&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Endo
International Plc made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 and the fraud that Defendants perpetrated on the
New York insurance market) were larger in scope than the Company
had represented; (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) 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)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
ENERGY HARBOR: Wolf Haldenstein Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by Energy
Harbor Corporation (OTC: ENGH).
On July 21, 2020, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents
arrested Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder in connection with an
alleged illegal scheme involving bribery in return for
Householder's championing of a state-funded bailout of two nuclear
power plants operated by Energy Harbor.
On this news, Energy Harbor's stock price fell $7.35 per share, or
over 20%, to close at $28.00 per share on July 21, 2020.
All investors who purchased shares of Energy Harbor Corporation.
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of Energy Recovery, Inc.
("Energy Recovery or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII) securities
between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Energy Recovery investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/energy-recovery-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn
more about your rights.
On June 29, 2020, Energy Recovery announced the termination of its
15-year contract with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery's VorTeq
hydraulic pumping system, citing "different strategic perspectives
as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Without the agreement
in place, the Company will be wholly responsible for the
commercialization of the VorTeq technology.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.31 or over 14%, to
close at $7.60 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic
perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (2) that these
differences created substantial risk of early termination of the
Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (3)
accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Recovery securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
September 21, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 21, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Energy
Recovery, Inc. ("Energy Recovery or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ERII)
securities between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Energy Recovery investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On June 29, 2020, Energy Recovery announced the termination of its
15-year contract with Schlumberger Technology Corp.
("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery's VorTeq
hydraulic pumping system, citing "different strategic perspectives
as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Without the agreement
in place, the Company will be wholly responsible for the
commercialization of the VorTeq technology.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.31 or over 14%, to
close at $7.60 per share on June 30, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic
perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq; (2) that these
differences created substantial risk of early termination of the
Company's exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (3)
accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future
license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and
omitted material facts.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Recovery securities,
you may move the Court no later than September 21, 2020, to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you 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.
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel No: 215-638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
ENERGY RECOVERY: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Energy Recovery, Inc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
ERII Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8432&wire=1
Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII)
ERII Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 2, 2017 -
June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/energy-recovery-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8432&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Energy
Recovery, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had different
strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of the Company's
VorTeq technology than Schlumberger Technology Corp., which had
exclusive rights to the use of VorTeq (ii) these differences
created substantial risk of early termination of the Company's
exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly,
the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was
false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted
material facts.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Hafez Sues over Drop in Credit Score
----------------------------------------------------------
ALIA HAFEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; TRANS
UNION, LLC.; and VANTAGESCORE SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-09019-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., July 16, 2020) alleges violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, as a result of the economic
devastation, U.S. Congress sought to ease the economic impact
caused by the Pandemic by enacting the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act, on March 27, 2020 (the "CARES Act"). The
CARES Act suspends the payment, interest accrual, and collections
on federal student loans held by the U.S. Department of Education
from March 13, 200 to September 30, 2020. As a result, all student
loan borrowers are automatically not required to make payments on
their federally owned loans for this approximately six month
period.
As part of the CARES Act, loan servicers and consumer reporting
agencies are required to be reported as "current." However, despite
continual assurances that the CARES Act would not impact consumer
credit reports, thousands of Navient borrowers' reports have seen a
drastic drop in their credit scores. Those drops occurred because
the Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations under
Federal and State Law by reporting the forbearance of federal
student loans as a negative remark on consumer's credit reports.
This has result in lowering consumer credit scores and jeopardizing
consumer's access to credit during a time of increasing financial
insecurity. These and other harms could and should have been
avoided had the Defendants exercised even a modicum of reasonable
care.
Equifax Information Services LLC provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions. [BN
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: bscott@bursor.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyer.com
FACEBOOK INC: IntegrityMessageBoards.com May File FAC Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
administrative motion to provisionally file portions of their first
amended class action complaint under seal.
The Court understands that the portions of the first amended
complaint ("FAC") sought for provisional sealing quote, reference,
or otherwise rely on documents that the Defendant has designated as
"highly confidential" pursuant to the parties' stipulated
protective order. Given that, he infers that the Defendant does
not intend to file any opposition to the Plaintiffs' Local Rule
7-11 administrative motion. Accordingly, Judge Hamilton granted
the provisional sealing as requested by the Plaintiffs in that
motion.
The Court also understands that the Plaintiffs disagree that any of
the FAC is entitled to sealing in the first instance and that the
parties would like the opportunity to brief whether the sealing
should be permanent or whether the FAC should instead be filed
publicly in its entirety. Judge Hamilton will allow such briefing
according to the schedule proposed by the parties, particularly:
(1) the Defendant will have until July 23, 2020 to file a
declaration and 10-page brief in support of permanently sealing the
provisionally sealed portions of the FAC; (2) the Plaintiffs will
have until Aug. 3, 2020 to file a 10-page brief in opposition to
such sealing; and (3) the Defendant will have until Aug. 17, 2020
to file a 5-page reply brief. The Defendant must formally notice
its motion for permanent sealing.
The provisional seal of the subject portions of the FAC will remain
in effect until the Court issues its order on the referenced motion
for permanent sealing.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 15, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xmhwbP from Leagle.com.
FIRST ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Alerts of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on July 28, 2020, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against First Energy Corp. (NYSE: FE).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is February 21, 2017 through July 21, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-first-energy-corp/
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all First Energy
Corp. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, September 28, 2020 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Electric Customers Launch Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Livingston at Beacon Journal reports that two electric
customers are leading a class action lawsuit against FirstEnergy
Corp., calling the Akron company an "unindicted co-conspirator" in
a criminal case that's costing ratepayers.
The lawsuit filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas like
another filed, piggybacks on a federal investigation that went
public with the arrests of Ohio Speaker of the House Larry
Householder, his political adviser Jeffrey Longstreth, Juan
Cespedes (a lobbyist for Energy Harbor, formerly FirstEnergy
Solutions), past Ohio GOP Chairman Matt Borges and Neil Clark, a
longtime Statehouse lobbyist.
While the lawsuit by a single shareholder seeks damages from the
company's falling stock price, the new lawsuit covers consumers who
say their rates are higher due to the company's alleged involvement
in paying Householder and his team, through a dark money group
called Generation Now, to pass a $1 billion bailout for
FirstEnergy's former nuclear power plants.
The two nuclear plants are now operated by Akron-based Energy
Harbor following the bankruptcy and restructuring of FirstEnergy
Solutions, a former subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp.
"While we can't comment on the lawsuit itself, it's important to
note that both of the nuclear power plants in Ohio supported by
H.B. 6 are owned and operated by Energy Harbor, a former subsidiary
of FirstEnergy known at the time as FirstEnergy Solutions (FES),"
FirstEnergy Manager for External Communications Jennifer Young said
in an emailed statement. "FirstEnergy and Energy Harbor are now
separate, unaffiliated companies. FirstEnergy does not receive any
revenues from the nuclear plants' operation nor any of the nuclear
funding provided as a result of H.B. 6." [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Gainey McKenna Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or the
"Company") (NYSE: FE) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of FirstEnergy between February 21, 2017
and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for FirstEnergy investors under the
federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) FirstEnergy and its
representatives and affiliates had orchestrated a $60 million
campaign to corrupt the political process in order to secure the
passage of legislation favoring the Company and its affiliates; (2)
FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had secretly
funneled tens of millions of dollars to Ohio politicians to bribe
those politicians in order to secure votes in favor of Ohio House
Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's
unprofitable nuclear facilities; (3) FirstEnergy and its
representatives and affiliates had conducted a massive, misleading
advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a
ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing millions of dollars
through an intricate web of 'dark money' entities and front
companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4)
FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had subverted a
citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by, among other
unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15 signature gathering firms
(and thus conflicting them out of supporting the initiative) and
bribing ballot initiative insiders and signature collectors; (5) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements regarding
FirstEnergy's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially
false and misleading; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
FirstEnergy was subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of
reputational, legal and financial harm. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of FirstEnergy
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
September 28, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
--tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of Sept. 28 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 FirstEnergy Corp. (FE) securities class
action lawsuit:
FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/
If you purchased shares of the above company 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
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.
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in the class action litigation on behalf of investors who
purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corp. ("FirstEnergy" or
the "Company") (NYSE: FE) between February 21, 2017 and July 21,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy during the Class
Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by
no later than September 28, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
FirstEnergy investors who wish to learn more about the litigation
and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the FirstEnergy Securities Class Litigation
FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, Ohio, is an electric utility
company. The action alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding FirstEnergy's internal controls, business practices and
prospects. In particular, defendants boasted of FirstEnergy's
legislative "solutions" to difficulties with its nuclear
facilities, but failed to disclose that those "solutions" revolved
around an illicit campaign to influence state lawmakers to support
legislation favoring the Company. For nearly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates channeled more than $60 million to
state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker Larry
Householder, to ensure the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"),
which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout of
FirstEnergy's failing nuclear facilities. Defendants also falsely
stated that they were in compliance with state and federal laws and
regulations throughout the Class Period, when in reality they were
exposing the Company and its investors to undisclosed risks of
legal, financial, and reputational damage.
On July 21, 2020, federal agents announced the arrest of Speaker
Householder and four other persons, including a lobbyist for
FirstEnergy, in connection with a $60 million racketeering and
bribery scheme. The criminal complaint and affidavit described an
alleged pay-to-play scheme in which FirstEnergy influenced the
legislative process in order to guarantee the passage of HB 6,
including by defending the bill against a citizens ballot
initiative to overturn the bill. Prosecutors described the case as
the "largest bribery, money-laundering scheme" in Ohio history. On
this news, the price of FirstEnergy stock fell $7.01 per share, or
almost 17%, from its closing price of $41.26 on July 20, 2020, to
close at $34.25 on July 21, 2020, on heavy trading volume.
On July 22, 2020, Cleveland.com published an article providing
additional details regarding the Company's illicit actions in
connection with the scheme. On this news, the price of FirstEnergy
stock dropped an additional $7.16, or 20.9% from its closing price
of $34.25 per share on July 21, 2020, to close at $27.09 on July
22, 2020, on extremely heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Rosen Law Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE: FE) between February 21,
2017 and July 21, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for FirstEnergy investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the FirstEnergy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1903.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) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates had
orchestrated a $60 million campaign to corrupt the political
process in order to secure the passage of legislation favoring the
Company and its affiliates; (2) FirstEnergy and its representatives
and affiliates had secretly funneled tens of millions of dollars to
Ohio politicians to bribe those politicians in order to secure
votes in favor of Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a $1.3 billion
ratepayer bailout for FirstEnergy's unprofitable nuclear
facilities; (3) FirstEnergy and its representatives and affiliates
had conducted a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support
of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by
passing millions of dollars through an intricate web of 'dark
money' entities and front companies in order to conceal the
Company's involvement; (4) FirstEnergy and its representatives and
affiliates had subverted a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal
HB6 by, among other unscrupulous tactics, hiring more than 15
signature gathering firms (and thus conflicting them out of
supporting the initiative) and bribing ballot initiative insiders
and signature collectors; (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' Class Period statements regarding FirstEnergy's
regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and
misleading; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, FirstEnergy was
subject to an extreme, undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and
financial harm. 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 September
28, 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-1903.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
FISERY INC: Durrant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
AL DURRANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FISERY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-20-012162 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., July 28, 2020) is a class
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received approximately 30
unsolicited text messages to his cellular telephone number from
Defendant's number 54826 commencing on or about January 1, 2020.
Allegedly, Defendant used automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS)
in transmitting the messages.
Fisery, Inc. provides financial services technology. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldollaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: 954-628-5793
Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
FLORIDITA RESTAURANTS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Suit by Toloza et al.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA TOLOZA and PORFIRIO EMICENTE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- FLORIDITA
RESTAURANTS, INC. d/b/a LA FLORIDITA and RAMON DIAZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05948 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020) alleges that
Defendants engage in an unlawful payment scheme which failed to:
-- pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated the full
minimum wage,
-- pay them overtime wages,
-- pay them spread-of-hours pay, and
-- give them proper wage notices,
as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201
et seq. ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law Section 190 et seq.
("NYLL"), and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA").
The FLSA Collective consists of approximately 30 similarly situated
current and former front-of-house workers, who have been victims of
Defendants' common policy and practices that have violated their
rights under the FLSA by, inter alia, willfully denying them
minimum and overtime wages and other pay.
Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a
corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees
compensation.
The Plaintiffs and a class consisting of all similarly situated
non-exempt employees were employed by the Defendants as servers,
food runners, bussers and bartenders.
Floridita Restaurants, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and
operates La Floridita, a well-known Harlem restaurant that has been
serving Cuban cuisine for more than 50 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1704
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
FORESCOUT TECH: Court Consolidates Sayce-Arbitrage Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susal Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California consolidated the case, CHRISTOPHER L. SAYCE,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00076-SI (N.D. Cal.), and the Arbitrage
Action, Case No. 3:20-cv-03819-SI.
Defendant Forescout Technologies is a San Jose, California-based
cybersecurity company that purports to provide device visibility
and control solutions to businesses and government agencies in an
attempt to reduce cyber and operational risks. The company was
founded in Israel in 2000 and had its initial public offering in
October 2017.
On Jan. 2, 2020, Plaintiff Sayce filed a securities class action
complaint against Defendants Forescout Technologies, Michael
DeCesare, and Christopher Harms for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that throughout the
Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Forescout was
experiencing significant volatility with respect to large deals and
issues related to the timing and execution of deals in the
Company's pipeline, especially in Europe, the Middle East, and
Africa ("EMEA"); (ii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's financial results; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Also on Jan. 2, 2020, Pomerantz LLP, counsel for Sayce, published
notice of the filing of the lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Forescout
securities between Feb. 7, 2019, and Oct. 9, 2019, both dates
inclusive. The notice informed shareholders that they had until
March 2, 2020, to ask the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff
for the class. On March 23, 2020, the Court granted Meitav
Tachlit's unopposed motion for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff in
the Sayce Action and approved Meitav Tachlit's selection of
Pomerantz LLP as the lead counsel.
On Feb. 6, 2020, Forescout announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement to be acquired by the affiliates of Advent
International for $33 per share in an all cash transaction valued
at approximately $1.9 billion. On the day of the announcement, the
price of Forescout common stock increased from a closing price of
$27.98 on Feb. 5, 2020, to $33.28 on February 6. On May 18, 2020,
Forescout issued a press release which revealed that on May 15,
2019, Advent notified the Company that it would not proceed with
the acquisition as scheduled. Stock prices declined to a closing
price of $22.57 per share on May 18, 2020, from $29.52 per share at
the close of trading on May 15, 2020.
On May 22, 2020, Meitav Tachlit filed an Amended Complaint in the
Sayce Action that expanded the class to include persons or
entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Forescout between Feb. 7, 2019 and May 15, 2020, both dates
inclusive, thereby encompassing the period just before Forescout's
announcement that it would not be acquired by Advent.
On June 10, 2020, the Arbitrage Fund, Water Island LevArb Fund, LP,
Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund, Water Island Merger
Arbitrage Institutional Comingled Master Fund LP, and Altshares
Merger Arbitrage ETF filed a securities class action complaint
against the same Defendants identified in the Sayce Action for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint in the Arbitrage Action alleges that Forescout made
misstatements and omissions about the prospects of the failed
Advent acquisition and defines the proposed class as those persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Defendant Forescout Technologies, Inc. during the period from Feb.
6, 2020 through May 15, 2020, inclusive and were damaged thereby.
On June 11, 2020, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, counsel for the
Arbitrage Fund Plaintiffs, published notice of the filing of the
lawsuit, with an Aug. 10, 2020 deadline for potential lead
plaintiffs to file a motion with the Court. The Arbitrage Action
was initially assigned to Judge Gonzalez Rogers and was then
reassigned to the Court upon a finding that it was related to the
Sayce Action.
Now before the Court is Meitav Tachlit's motion requesting that the
Arbitrage Action be consolidated with the Sayce Action and that
notice to the investors of the lead plaintiff deadline in the
Arbitrage Action be vacated. Meitav Tachlit argues that the
Arbitrage Action raises claims against the same Defendants for a
subset of facts and circumstances already encompassed by the
Amended Complaint in the Sayce Action, and the Arbitrage Action
therefore should be consolidated with the Sayce Action.
The Arbitrage Fund Plaintiffs request that the Court denies Meitav
Tachlit's motion and issues an order striking Meitav Tachlit's
Amended Complaint. Alternatively, if the Court grants Meitav
Tachlit's request to consolidate the cases, the Arbitrage Fund
Plaintiffs assert that the Court should order publication of a new
PSLRA notice and a new lead plaintiff selection process for the
entire class period alleged in Meitav Tachlit's amended complaint.
The Defendants support consolidation of the two related cases in
the interest of judicial economy but take no position on the notice
or lead plaintiff issues. On July 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss Meitav Tachlit's Amended Complaint. The
Defendants argue, among other things, that the amended allegations,
particularly those concerning the COVID-19 pandemic and Advent's
decision not to close its deal with Forescout, are unrelated to the
deficient forecasting allegations of the original complaint. The
hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for Oct. 2, 2020.
Since both actions share common issues of law and fact, Judge
Illston consolidates the two actions in the interest of judicial
economy. The Amended Complaint subsumes the class period of the
Arbitrage Complaint, and both actions name the same Defendants and
federal securities law claims. Both the Arbitrage Complaint and
the Amended Complaint cite to the same Forescout disclosures and
press release concerning the failed Advent acquisition. Although
the Arbitrage Complaint focuses solely on the alleged
misrepresentations regarding the failed acquisition, while the
Amended Complaint alleges additional false and/or misleading
statements, there is enough overlap between the two that not
consolidating these cases would needlessly waste the resources of
the parties and of the Court. Accordingly, the Judge consolidates
Case Nos. 3:20-cv-00076-SI and 3:20-cv-03819-SI.
The Judge next considers whether to reopen the lead plaintiff
selection process by ordering that Meitav Tachlit republish notice
of the suit in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). It is entirely possible that
individuals who could now be considered potential lead plaintiffs
in the Sayce Action would have disregarded the earlier notice,
since the Amended Complaint presents new facts and
misrepresentations relating to the period of the failed Advent
acquisition that arose only after the original complaint was filed.
There is no way that investors who acquired stock from the time of
the announcement of the acquisition agreement to the time of the
announcement of its failure could have been on notice to move to be
lead plaintiff in the Sayce Action, because the losses and
misrepresentations related to the merger had not even occurred at
the time the Sayce Action was filed or when motions for lead
plaintiff were due. Thus, the Amended Complaint changes the
contours of the lawsuit sufficiently to warrant republication of
the PSLRA notice.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Illston consolidated Case Nos.
3:20-cv-00076-SI and 3:20-cv-03819-SI, and vacated the Court's
order appointing Meitav Tachlit as the Lead Plaintiff and
appointing the Lead Counsel. She ordered Meitav Tachlit to
republish notice of the consolidated class action complaint in
compliance with the PSLRA no later than July 31, 2020. Pursuant to
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), any member of the purported
class seeking appointment as lead plaintiff will have 60 days
thereafter to file a motion with the Court seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff.
The Judge denied as moot the Defendants' pending Motion to Dismiss,
without prejudice to re-filing following the conclusion of the new
lead plaintiff selection process.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/qsoSeH from Leagle.com.
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Forescout Technologies, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FSCT) between February 6, 2020 and May 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2020 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Forescout investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Forescout class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1875.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) Forescout was experiencing a significant and
disproportionate decline in its financial performance; (2) the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Forescout's planned acquisition by Advent International Corp.;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about
its business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. 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-1875.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Soyinka FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmond E. Chang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Defendant's motion
to dismiss the complaint captioned OLAMIDE SOYINKA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANKLIN
COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-04691 (N.D.
Ill.), for failure to state a claim.
Soyinka brought the proposed class action against Franklin,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA"). Soyinka claims that Franklin falsely implied in a
dunning letter that Franklin intended to sue her to collect on a
debt.
Soyinka owed $171 on an AT&T consumer utility account. When she
was unable to pay, the debt went into default. In a letter dated
May 7, 2019, Franklin Collection Service attempted to collect the
defaulted debt. In the first paragraph of the letter, Franklin
offered a "settlement" and advised Soyinka to contact "your
attorney" about Franklin's "potential remedies" and "your
defenses."
Soyinka brought the proposed class action against Franklin under
the FDCPA, alleging that Franklin's letter: (1) falsely threatened
a potential lawsuit in violation of the FDCPA's ban against false
or misleading representations, because neither Franklin nor its
client, AT&T Mobility, intended to bring a lawsuit against Soyinka;
and (2) deployed an unfair practice in trying to collect the debt
in violation of the FDCPA's ban against using unfair means, because
it made a false threat of litigation.
Franklin has moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the
allegations fail to adequately state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Franklin argues that the letter made no threat of
litigation. By its reasoning, the letter does not even suggest
litigation because, when read literally, it "simply provides
advice: pay, contact your attorney, or call." It argues that
various other district courts have dismissed FDCPA claims --
brought against Franklin--that were based on similarly worded
letters.
Judge Chang opines that the letter's first paragraph could suggest
to the unsophisticated consumer that a lawsuit is possible, when in
fact it is not. To begin, "settlement" is broadly understood by
the public as a legal agreement used to avoid litigation. And
similarly, even an unsophisticated consumer knows that "remedies,"
"defenses," and "attorney" are all terms used in litigation, and
encountering them immediately after reading about a "settlement"
offer could lead the consumer to believe that a lawsuit is
coming--time to lawyer up. It is true that these terms could also
be used to describe negotiation without resort to a lawsuit, but an
unsophisticated consumer might not be able to figure that out.6 In
cases of ambiguity--such as the case--the case law says that the
case must move on.
As a final point on the false-representation claim, it is worth
adding that the threat of litigation does not disappear even though
there is a back-page disclaimer of sorts. The disclaimer, however,
does not clean up the threat of litigation, at least not to the
extent that dismissal is justified. The false-representation claim
survives.
Turning to the second claim, Section 1692f of the FDCPA prohibits a
debt collector from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect
or attempt to collect any debt. In moving to dismiss the claim,
Franklin argues that there is a bright-line rule barring Section
1692f from applying to claims for which the complained-of conduct
is already covered by Section 1692e. Def.'s Br. at 10. But there is
no blanket bar like that.
The Seventh Circuit has allowed claims under both statutes to
proceed even when the offending conduct overlaps. So the one
argument that Franklin offers against the Section 1692f claim is
rejected. That said, the Judge opines that when the case reaches
the summary judgment stage, Soyinka will be expected to provide
some factual and substantive content to the unfair-means claim so
that there is a clear legal distinction between it and the
false-representation claim under Section 1692e. The same factual
allegations might serve as the basis for both claims, but the
claims must be legally distinct. Both sides will be required to
offer substantive analysis of Section 1692f at the
dispositive-motion stage.
For these reasons, Judge Chang denied Franklin's motion to dismiss.
The Court ordered the parties to confer and file a joint status
report. Judge Chang will thenset the discovery schedule based on
that report.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 15, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://is.gd/7afXyG from Leagle.com.
GEO GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 8 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)
between February 27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important September 8, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for GEO investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the GEO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1894.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) GEO maintained ineffective COVID-19 response procedures;
(2) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the
Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (3)
accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial
and/or reputational harm; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. 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 September
8, 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-1894.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Announces Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE) between March
6, 2019 and March 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Guidewire investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Guidewire class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1907.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) the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well;
(2) Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet
customer needs and catch-up with rival systems; (3) the Company's
failed transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's
traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's
revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on
significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based
products, was baseless and unattainable. 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 September
23, 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-1907.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com [GN]
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Guidewire Software,
Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8303&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2019 - March 4, 2020
Allegations against GWRE include that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Young Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HANDY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-05487 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2020) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's website
-- https://www.handy.com/ -- is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction
to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices,
and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Handy Technologies, Inc. offers residential cleaning and repairing
services. The Company provides online booking services for hiring a
professional cleaner and handyman for houses, apartments,
condominiums, and other residential properties. Handy Technologies
operates in Cambridge, Massachusetts and markets to customers in
New York and Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
danalgottlieb@aol.com
IDEANOMICS INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Aug. 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Ideanomics Inc. ("Ideanomics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IDEX)
between March 20, 2020 and June 25, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
If you purchased Ideanomics securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Ideanomics IDEX
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: (i) Ideanomics' MEG Center in Qingdao was not "a one
million square foot EV expo center"; (ii) the Company had been
using doctored or altered photographs of the purported MEG Center
in Qingdao; (iii) the Company's electric vehicle business in China
was not performing nearly as strong as Ideanomics had represented;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 25, 2020, analyst Hindenburg Research issued a series of
tweets announcing Hindenburg's conclusion that Ideanomics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: IDEX) "is an egregious & obvious fraud." Hindenburg
asserted that it found evidence that Ideanomics "doctored photos in
its PR to suggest it owns/operates" a facility, and that this
"strikes us as a clear effort by the company to manipulate the
photographs in order to drive its stock price up." Hindenburg
further asserted that it had an investigator who visited Ideanomics
"supposed MEG sales center," and that the "facility is actually
operated by almost 100 sales groups," none of whom had "heard of
[Ideanomics] or MEG." Furthermore, Hindenburg stated that it had
its "investigator call five of [Ideanomics'] purported customers
that are helping drive its supposed [electric vehicle] business,"
and that "[n]one of them were aware of Ideanomics and none were
able to confirm doing business with" Ideanomics.
Also on June 25, 2020, analyst J Capital Research issued a report
on Ideanomics entitled "Champion of Promotes." J Capital wrote, in
part, that "Ideanomics . . . is a zero. The company changes its
name and promotional story so frequently that it's hard to keep up.
One thing remains a constant, despite all the press releases,
buzzwords and hype: shareholders get wiped out." J Capital
continued, in a tweet, that "[w]e called all the 'buyers' named in
[Ideanomics'] press releases this month. Not a single one had made
a purchase. One of them thanked us for alerting them to 'fake
news.'"
On this announcement, Ideanomics shares fell approximately 21% in
one day, down to $2.44 per share from their June 24, 2020 close of
$3.09 per share. Shares continued to plummet on June 26, 2020,
closing at just $1.46 per share, a drop of approximately 53%.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 27, 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 Ideanomics securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ideanomicsinc-idex-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-280/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. [GN]
IMPINJ INC: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Plymouth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a stipulation of settlement has been
reached in Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al.
On January 31, 2019, a fourth class-action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for the County of New York against the
company, its chief executive officer, former chief operating
officer, former chief financial officer, members of the company's
board of directors and the underwriters of the company's July 2016
initial public stock offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary
public offering, or SPO.
Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to its IPO and SPO,
alleges that the company made false or misleading statements in the
registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings
concerning demand for its products and inventory in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities
class actions discussed above.
In connection with the Federal Securities Class Action (Employees'
Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East
Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al.), on July 9, 2020, the parties
in both this action and the federal securities class actions
executed a stipulation of settlement that resolves the claims in
both actions.
The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary, and, following
notice to class members, final approval by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Once the settlement is finally approved by the federal court,
plaintiffs will dismiss this action with prejudice.
Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.
IMPINJ INC: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in W.D. Wash. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a stipulation of settlement has been
reached in the consolidated class action suit spearheaded by the
Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish
of East Baton Rouge, currently pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.
On August 7, 2018, a class-action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and former chief operating officer.
Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on
Form 10-Q for first-quarter 2018 and a concurrent press release
made false or misleading statements about its business prospects
and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages,
costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed this complaint.
On August 27, 2018, a second class-action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former
chief financial officer.
Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements
in its financial statements, press releases and conference calls
during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and
expenses.
On October 2, 2018, a third class-action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, former chief operating officer and former
chief financial officer.
Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including
February 15, 2018, asserts claims that it made false or misleading
statements about customer demand for its products and inventory in
SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, costs and expenses.
On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff.
On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
its products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act.
On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court
entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion.
The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against the company's
former chief operating officer, dismissed
product-capability-related allegations against its former chief
financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made
false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior
to first-quarter 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other
claims and defendants.
On July 9, 2020, following a private settlement mediation with lead
plaintiff in the federal securities class actions and plaintiff in
the New York State securities class action (Plymouth County
Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al.,), the parties in both
actions executed a stipulation of settlement that resolves the
claims asserted in both actions.
The proposed settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiff
class of $20.0 million.
Impinj said, "Our insurers will contribute approximately $14.6
million to the settlement, and we will contribute the remaining
settlement amount of approximately $5.4 million. Accordingly, we
recorded a provision of $5.4 million related to our estimated
settlement amount to general and administrative expenses for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2020. The proposed settlement
is subject to preliminary and, following notice to class members,
final approval by the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington."
Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.
INSPERITY INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of September 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Insperity, Inc. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8308&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
Class Period: February 11, 2019 - February 11, 2020
Allegations against NSP include that: (a) the Company had failed to
negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit
plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical
claims from these plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse
trend of large medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the
Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee
benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer
retention; and (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to,
and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
INTEL CORP: Howard G. Smith Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTC) securities
between April 23, 2020 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Intel investors have until September 28, 2020 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Intel investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On July 23, 2020, after the market closed, Intel disclosed that
production of its 7-nanometer chips would be delayed after the
Company had "identified a defect mode in [its] 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.81, or
approximately 16%, to close at $50.59 per share on July 24, 2020,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Intel had identified a defect mode in its
7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that,
as a result, the Company would experience a six-month delay in its
production schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was
reasonably likely to rely on third-party foundries for
manufacturing its 7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Intel was reasonably likely to lose market share to
its competitors who are already selling 7-nanometer products; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Intel 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.
Howard G. Smith
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Tel No: 215-638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
INTEL CORP: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Intel
Corporation ("Intel" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:INTC) for violations
of Sec10(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 23,
2020 and July 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 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. Intel identified a fault in its
7-nanometer process that resulted in yield degradation in its
product output. This manufacturing problem resulted in a six-month
delay in the Company's schedule for 7-nanometer products. The
Company was likely to rely on third-party foundries to help produce
the 7-nanometer products. The delays and other problems put the
Company at risk of losing market share to competitors already on
the market with 7-nanometer products. 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 Intel, 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]
IROBOT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Massachusetts Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated putative class action suit before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts remains pending.
On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar
Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837. The case has been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
A similar case captioned Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-12483 was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On January 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the Miramar and
Campbell cases (the consolidated cases together, the "Securities
Class Action") and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
Counsel.
On April 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of
competition and Section 301 tariffs on the Company's financial
performance, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors
and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The
Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the
United States military, and other government agencies worldwide.
The company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.
JAGUAR LAND: TH Chiro Files Notice of Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that the lead
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Jaguar Land Rover North
America LLC (JLRNA), that alleged the manufacturer was responsible
for a number of leaky windshields, has filed a notice of dismissal
in Tennessee Federal Court. According to the dismissal, TH Chiro,
PLLC filed the notice and all of the individual claims stated in
the class action complaint are to be dismissed with prejudice.
Details involving why Chiro filed the notice of dismissal were not
made available.
Case Background
Chiro alleged JLRNA was responsible for windshield leaks that cause
internal damage to select vehicle models. He originally sought
financial reimbursements for the alleged damages. According to
Chiro's class action complaint, Land Rover Discovery windshields
leak and have caused dashboard computer system failures due to
excess water damage.
According to Chiro, he lost all of his dashboard controls, signals,
messaging and instrumentation after water leaked into the vehicle's
computer system through the windshield. 2013 to 2020 Land Rover
Discovery SUVs were impacted by the alleged leaky windshields.
After Chiro experienced vehicle issues he took his Land Rover to a
dealership for repairs and claimed it was there for two months
before he could pick it up. The class action complaint alleged
JLRNA would not resolve the leaking windshield issues Chiro
experienced. Chiro also pushed for the 2017 Discovery SUV's to be
recalled for the alleged windshield leaking issues and should be
"properly repaired by the automaker" as well as an extend
windshield warranty for impacted vehicles in his class action
complaint. [GN]
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Brief in Opposition to Petition Due Today
-------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents are expected to file today their brief in opposition to
the petition for a writ of certiorari filed on June 1, 2020, in the
Supreme Court appeal, Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. v. Senne.
Respondents sought and obtained an extension, through August 12, of
the time to file their response.
Aaron Senne, et al. filed an application to vacate stay pending the
filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari in
the matter styled AARON SENNE, ET AL., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Applicants, v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS
BASEBALL CORP. ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 19A882.
Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., petitioned for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled AARON SENNE, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., et al., Case
Nos. 17-16245, 17-16267, 17-16276. The Court of Appeals issued its
opinion on August 16, 2019. Respondents' petition for rehearing en
banc was denied on December 30, 2019. Their motion to stay issuance
of the mandate was granted on January 13, 2020.
Reasons for vacating the stay:
-- The time and expense of resumed pretrial proceedings do not
justify a stay or constitute "irreparable harm."
-- Respondents have not shown a "reasonable probability" of a
grant of certiorari or a “significant possibility of
reversal.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all
minor league baseball players employed by Major League Baseball or
any MLB franchise under the Minor League Uniform Player Contract.
The Plaintiffs contend that MLB's longstanding exemption from the
United States' antitrust laws allows it to openly collude on the
working conditions for the development of its chief commodity:
young baseball players. They allege that most minor leaguers earn
between around $3,000 and $7,500 for the entire year despite
routinely working over 50 hours per week (and sometimes 70 hours
per week) during the roughly five-month championship season.
However, the Plaintiffs assert, minor leaguers receive no overtime
pay, and instead routinely receive less than minimum wage during
the championship season.
The District Court denied certification of the eight state-law
classes and decertified the previously conditionally-certified FLSA
collective action. Starting with the (b)(3) classes, the court
concluded that a host of individualized issues -- including, inter
alia, the determination of which of the players' activities
constitute compensable "work"; the amount of time each player spent
engaging in those activities; the nature and amount of each
player's compensation; the analysis of which state's law would
govern each player's claims; and the availability of certain
defenses -- predominated over common issues. The District Court
found that these individualized issues pervaded all parts of the
season, from spring training in March through instructional leagues
in September.
Kansas City Royals argues that the Ninth Circuit's decision to
certify the employment-law class actions not only departs
substantially from this Court's precedents, but squarely conflicts
with decisions of other circuits on the basic requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Thousands of minor-league baseball players with
different positions, employers, and workplaces seek to prove
entitlement to additional compensation principally through a survey
that failed to reasonably capture the amount of time any individual
ballplayer spent on compensable activities. Given that glaring
deficiency, no individual plaintiff could have relied on that
evidence to establish the length of his workday or to prove his
entitlement to additional compensation in an individual action. Yet
the Ninth Circuit nonetheless found no Rule 23 or Rules Enabling
Act problem with allowing these thousands of disparately situated
individuals to band together and proceed as a class on the basis of
such borderline-irrelevant representative evidence.[BN]
The Plaintiffs-Applicants Aaron Senne, et al., are represented by:
Robert L. King, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-4844
Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 31 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Kingold Jewelry, Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, and indexed under 20-cv-03050, is on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Kingold securities between March 15, 2018, and June 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Kingold securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 31, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Kingold purports to design, manufacture, and sell 24-karat gold
jewelry and Chinese ornaments in the People's Republic of China.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known to
Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Kingold used fake gold as collateral to
fraudulently secure loans; (ii) consequently, the Company would
face creditor lawsuits and be delisted from the Shanghai Gold
Exchange; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On June 29, 2020, before the market opened, Caixin Global published
an article entitled "Cover Story: The Mystery of $2 Billion of
Loans Backed by Fake Gold." The article stated, among other things,
that Kingold had used gold bars that were actually gilded copper as
collateral in loans and was now facing lawsuits as a result, and
that Kingold had been delisted from the Shanghai Gold Exchange.
On this news, shares of Kingold stock fell $0.27 per share, or over
24%, to close at $0.85 per share on June 29, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
[GN]
KINGOLD JEWELRY: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Kingold
Jewelry, Inc. ("Kingold" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:KGJI) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 15,
2018 and June 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 31, 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. Kingold fraudulently secured loans in a
scheme utilizing fake gold. As a result, the Company faces creditor
lawsuits and was delisted by the Shanghai Gold Exchange. 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 Kingold, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]
LAUREN PATIN: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Brown Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA BROWN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAUREN PATIN (a/k/a Lauren Powell and Lauren
Patin-Powell, individually and as a partner of Teach K12 Online
Academy, and JOHN DOES 1-5, names being fictitious as unknown at
this time, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03119-LMM (N.D. Ga., July
27, 2020) brings this complaint against Defendants for their
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant hired Plaintiff as a
"teaching assistant" through an offer letter dated February 14,
2020 which set Plaintiff to start at February 16, 2020 at the rate
of $14.00 per hour. Then after two weeks, Plaintiff was promoted to
an "administrator" role with a raise to $16.00 per hour. However,
Plaintiff found out that Teach K12 program was never operating
anywhere within the state of Florida.
As a result, Plaintiff never received any compensation from
Defendant on her last day of employment even though electronic
payroll records show Plaintiff's hours worked, including overtime,
that is equivalent to $6,499.14.
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff minimum and overtime wages as
required by the FLSA for all hours worked up to and over 40 hours
as non-exempt employee.
Lauren Patin is a Program Director for Teach K12, which is an
online teaching program. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus G. Keegan, Esq.
Jerilyn E. Gardner, Esq.
KEEGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
1827 Powers Ferry Road
Bldg. 25, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Tel: (404) 842-0333
Fax: (404) 920-8540
Emails: mkeegan@keeganfirm.com
jgardner@keeganfirm.com
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY: Gunter Amends Suit on Tuition Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Gunter has filed an amended complaint in her lawsuit against
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College,
et al., to adequately allege her own citizenship, and that
adequately allege the citizenship of at least one proposed class
member who is diverse from LSU.
The case is TAYLOR GUNTER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHER
INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND
AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ET AL, Civil Action No.
20-346-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.).
Gunter filed her original complaint on June 5, 2020, asserting a
class action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated who
paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester, against
Defendant Louisiana State University and Agricultural and
Mechanical College ("LSU"). The Plaintiff alleges she was a
full-time LSU student in the Spring 2020 semester and entered into
a contract with LSU, wherein she agreed to pay tuition and fees to
LSU, and LSU agreed to provide in-person educational services, etc.
to her.
The Plaintiff asserts that LSU breached the contract when it
cancelled all in-person educational services and activities for the
remainder of that semester in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a result of such cancellation, the Plaintiff contends that she
was denied the benefit and services for which they bargained for
when they provided payment for tuition and various fees. She thus
seeks a pro rata refund of the tuition and fees she paid to LSU for
the portion of the semester for which no in-person educational
services and activities were provided.
However, Magistrate Judge Wilder-Doomes of the U.S District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana held that the Complaint is
deficient in its allegations regarding the Plaintiff's citizenship,
and fails to adequately plead minimal diversity to establish the
Court's jurisdiction under CAFA.
The Court opined the proper information regarding the citizenship
of the parties, the amount in controversy, and the number of
proposed class plaintiffs is necessary to establish the Court's
diversity jurisdiction under CAFA. The Complaint alleges that the
aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million exclusive of
interest in costs, which appears to meet CAFA jurisdictional
threshold, and further alleges that there are more than 100 members
of the Class, which appears to meet CAFA's class size requirement.
With respect to CAFA's minimal diversity requirement, the Plaintiff
alleges that LSU is a constitutional entity established under
Article 8, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution, which is
granted the authority and responsibility to supervise and manage
the institutions, statewide agricultural programs, and other
programs administered through its systems. Louisiana State
University is located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Moreover, the
Court has previously taken judicial notice that the Board of
Supervisors of LSU is a citizen of Louisiana.
However, while the Complaint alleges that at least one member of
the Class, is a citizen of a different state than LSU, the Court
found that the Complaint fails to identify the alleged "different
state" and fails to plead the citizenship of a class member(s) who
is diverse from LSU. The Plaintiff's own citizenship is unclear,
as she is alleged to be a resident of the State of Louisiana.
Allegations of residency are not sufficient to adequately allege
the citizenship of an individual; rather, for diversity purposes,
citizenship means domicile; mere residence in the State is not
sufficient.
Therefore, to properly plead the Plaintiff's citizenship, the
Plaintiff must plead her domicile. However, if she ultimately
pleads that she is a Louisiana domiciliary, minimal diversity will
still not be sufficiently alleged. In order to establish minimal
diversity under CAFA, the Plaintiff must allege the citizenship of
at least one putative class member who is diverse from LSU. The
Judge raised the issue of whether the Court may exercise
jurisdiction under CAFA in the matter, specifically, whether the
minimal diversity requirement is met.
Accordingly, in a June 16, 2020 Notice & Order available at
https://is.gd/4JYG6x at Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Wilder-Doomes
ordered the Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint that contains
all of her numbered allegations, as revised, supplemented, and/or
amended, without reference to any other document in the record,
that adequately alleges her own citizenship, and that adequately
alleges the citizenship of at least one proposed class member who
is diverse from Defendant Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College. The case will be allowed to
proceed if jurisdiction is adequately established.
The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 25, 2020.
LOUISIANA: Bar Owners Struggle, Join Class Action vs. Government
----------------------------------------------------------------
brproud.com reports that Bourbon Hall is a locally-owned bar in New
Iberia. It opened in December, but the owners say they're worried
Gov. John Bel Edwards' mandates will force them out of business
before they even last a year.
"I keep saying the first time we shut our bar down, let our girls
go, and turned off all the lights was heartbreaking. The second
time we had to do it, now we're just frustrated and upset," Danita
Maldonado said.
The owners of Bourbon Hall, Danita Maldonado and Caroll Trahan, say
they have been trying to keep their bar afloat for months now.
They say although the governor forced them to close, they still
have to pay the bills.
They say if they don't keep their air conditioner and coolers
running, their inventory will go bad, which could cost a fortune.
With no end in sight to the governor's mandate keeping bars closed,
they've joined a class action lawsuit against the state.
"We are joining a lawsuit. We've even kind of said what's the next
step when we don't know what to do with our business and our future
is literally deteriorating before our eyes, you go to the source.
So we have joined other bar owners across the state to file a
lawsuit against our government," Maldonado told News 10.
They hope the lawsuit will either reverse the governor's mandate or
help them get any kind of financial relief.
"They shut us down with nothing. They didn't give us any kind of
handout. They didn't bail us out. A lot of us didn't qualify for
any of the federal loans or assistance so hopefully at the end of
the day if that's all we get, it'll be something to start over
again," Maldonado said.
The owners of Bourbon Hall also met with Governor Edwards' legal
staff, but they were told there is nothing they could do. [GN]
MAINE: Court Denies Denbow's Petition for TRO in Inmates Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued an Order
denying the Plaintiffs' Petition for Temporary Restraining Order in
the case captioned JOSEPH A. DENBOW, et al., Petitioners v. MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Respondents, Case No.
1:20-cv-00175-JAW (D. Me).
Two individuals incarcerated in facilities operated by the Maine
Department of Corrections filed a habeas action seeking a temporary
restraining order on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated against the Department and its commissioner, claiming
Eighth Amendment violations and violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
The order these individuals seek would fundamentally alter central
details of the Department's COVID-19 response.
Because the Court believes that significant unresolved factual
disputes preclude a finding that the incarcerated individuals have
established a likelihood of success on the merits for their claims
or that they have established a likelihood of irreparable harm in
the absence of injunctive relief, the Court denies temporary
injunctive relief.
The Court says: This case represents the rare one, in the Court's
experience, where both sides of the litigation are striving for the
same result--in this case, the continued health and safety of the
incarcerated population in the state of Maine--and the gulf between
them stems only from their very different views about what is
necessary, advisable, and feasible to achieve that result. The
Court has heard and considered the concerns raised by Petitioners
about Respondents' COVID-19 response. To dismiss the motion for a
TRO does not diminish or resolve the Petitioners' concerns. But the
Court is not prepared--prior to an evidentiary hearing and without
a showing that disaster is truly imminent--to substitute its
judgment for that of the MDOC and Commissioner Liberty when it
comes to administration of their facilities.
The Court plans on moving the Petitioners' request for a
preliminary injunction in this case to resolution as swiftly as
possible--an effort in which the Court expects the parties will
assist. Given the relatively low number of confirmed cases of
COVID-19 in MDOC facilities and what the Court expects will be a
rapid resolution of the request for a preliminary injunction, the
Court does not see the need for temporary injunctive relief at this
time.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Joseph A. Denbow
and Sean R. Ragsdale's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yb3q94vc from Leagle.com
MARSHALL COUNTY, IN: Misener May Assert Two 14th Amendment Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South
Bend Division, issued an Opinion and Order allowing the Plaintiff's
two Fourteenth Amendment claims to proceed in the case captioned
MICHAEL ABRAHAM MISENER v. MARSHALL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., et al.,
Case No. 3:20-CV-269-RLM-MGG (N.D. Ind.).
Michael Abraham Misener, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a
complaint. The court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint
and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Mr. Misener alleges that, since his August 15, 2019 arrival at the
Marshall County Jail, Sheriff Hassel and Jail Holcomb have
subjected him to overcrowded conditions and assigned to sleep on
the floor without a cot or bunk or near toilets or showers as other
inmates used them. He was also deprived of showers and recreation
time from August 15 to August 21. Because Mr. Misener is a pretrial
detainee, the Court must assess his claims under the Fourteenth
Amendment instead of the Eighth Amendment.
According to the Opinion and Order, Giving him the favorable
inferences to which he is entitled at this stage of the
proceedings, Mr. Misener states a plausible Fourteenth Amendment
claim against Sheriff Hassel and Bo Holcomb. Because Mr. Misener
alleges that the Marshall County Sheriff's Department maintained a
policy or practice of assigning inmates to sleep on the floor, he
may proceed on a claim against that defendant.
Mr. Misener also seeks injunctive relief to remedy the overcrowded
conditions at the Marshall County Jail. Counsel from the American
Civil Liberties Union are already pursuing this claim on his behalf
in a class action lawsuit in Miller v. Marshall County, 3:19-cv-842
(N.D. Ind., Filed Sept. 26, 2019), so the Court declines to allow
Mr. Misener to proceed on this claim in this case.
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) GRANTS Michael Abraham Misener leave to proceed on a
Fourteenth Amendment claim for money damages against
Sheriff Hassel and Sergeant Holcomb for subjecting him to
overcrowded conditions since August 15, 2019;
(2) GRANTS Mr. Misener leave to proceed on a Fourteenth
Amendment claim against the Marshal County Sheriff's
Department for maintaining a policy or practice of
assigning inmates to sleep on the floor;
(3) DISMISSES all other claims;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service
to issue and serve process on Sheriff Hassel, Sergeant
Holcomb, and the Marshall County Sheriff's Department at
the Marshall County Jail with a copy of this order and the
complaint (ECF 1) as required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(d); and
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g)(2), Sheriff
Hassel, Sergeant Holcomb, and the Marshall County's
Sheriff Department to respond, as provided for in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R.
10-1(b), only to the claims for which Michael Abraham
Misener has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 1, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y9bnrtzb from
Leagle.com.
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal in Point-of-Sale Acceptance Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that objectors to a class
action settlement in Canada have sought to appeal the approval
orders and certain appellate courts have rejected the objectors'
appeals, while outstanding appeals remain in a few provinces.
In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against Mastercard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants.
The suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in Mastercard's favor)
concerning certain Mastercard rules related to point-of-sale
acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no surcharge"
rules.
The Quebec suit sought compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.
In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against
Mastercard, Visa and a number of large Canadian financial
institutions. The British Columbia suit sought compensatory damages
in unspecified amounts, and the Ontario suit sought compensatory
damages of $5 billion on the basis of alleged conspiracy and
various alleged breaches of the Canadian Competition Act.
Additional purported class action complaints were commenced in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the other suits.
In June 2017, Mastercard entered into a class settlement agreement
to resolve all of the Canadian class action litigation. The
settlement, which requires Mastercard to make a cash payment and
modify its "no surcharge" rule, has received court approval in each
Canadian province.
Objectors to the settlement have sought to appeal the approval
orders. Certain appellate courts have rejected the objectors'
appeals, while outstanding appeals remain in a few provinces.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Class Cert. Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motions for class
certification filed in the ATM Surcharge Fees suits remain
pending.
In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate.
Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM operators to
charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for transactions processed
over Mastercard's and Visa's respective networks that are not
greater than the surcharge for transactions over other networks
accepted at the same ATM.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").
The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints.
In February 2013, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to
dismiss the complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015
and sent the case back for further proceedings.
In September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1
billion in damages against all of the defendants.
Mastercard intends to vigorously defend against both the
plaintiffs' liability and damages claims and has opposed class
certification.
Mastercard expects briefing on class certification to be completed
in the second half of 2020.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues
to defend itself against a merchant class action suit involving
conspiracy to shift fraud liability.
In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.
Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and
an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
In September 2016, the court denied the Network Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a motion for EMVCo and
the Bank Defendants. In May 2017, the court transferred the case to
New York so that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S.
merchant class interchange litigation described above.
The plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion for class certification,
following the district court's denial of their initial motion.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: TCPA Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the parties in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") class action suit in
Florida have completed the briefing on plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Mastercard is a defendant in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") class action pending in Florida.
The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that
approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").
The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed). In June 2018, the court granted Mastercard's motion to
stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission
makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax
services.
In December 2019, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying
that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services
that are received via e-mail.
As a result of the ruling, the stay of the litigation was lifted in
January 2020.
The parties have completed briefing plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MEIJI RESTAURANT: Comonfort Seeks Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Guadalupe Comonfort, and
Pastrana Rodrigo Neri-Beltran, v. Meiji Restaurant, LLC; Cai Huang;
and QinYun, Case No. 2:20-cv-00470-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order granting conditional class certification
and approving court-facilitated notice to the following persons:
"all monthly or weekly salaried employees of the Defendants
who worked at Meiji Cuisine during the time period on or
after three years in advance of the date of the Court's
decision granting conditional certification."
The Defendants operate a restaurant.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
310 W Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: 414/271-4500
Facsimile: 414/271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
MERCEDES-BENZ: Thompsons Solicitors Launch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Marc Horne, writing for The Times, reports that a legal firm has
launched a case against Mercedes-Benz which it claims will be the
highest value class action in Scottish legal history.
Dozens of Scottish drivers caught up in an alleged emissions
scandal are set to sue the German car giant amid claims it sought
to "cheat" diesel tests.
The claimants are being represented by Thompsons Solicitors, the
firm acting for more than 2,000 people affected by the Volkswagen
"Dieselgate" affair.
An English High Court judge ruled that Volkswagen had fitted a
group of cars made using EA189 engines between 2007 and 2015 with
"defeat devices" which did not accurately reflect the emissions
being produced. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Kucur Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------
SULEYMAN KUCUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01441-JLS-AHG (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Plaintiff has an alleged debt which was assigned or otherwise
transferred to Defendant for collection.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a collection letter
from Defendant dated October 11, 2019 labeled as "PRE-LEGAL
NOTIFICATION" and an additional letter dated December 27, 2019
labeled as "FINAL NOTICE". However, the collection letters were
deceptive because Defendant threatened, but never intended to
forward Plaintiff's account to an attorney.
The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector to threaten the debtor, and/or
use any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in
connection with the collection of any debt.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: George Floyd Activists File Class Suit v. Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Dougherty, writing for Jurist, reports that activists injured
by the Minneapolis Police Department during protests following the
murder of George Floyd filed a class action suit against the City
of Minneapolis and its Police Department on July 28.
The suit, filed by four named plaintiffs injured during the
protests, alleges that law enforcement used less-lethal weapons
against protesters engaged in "constitutionally protected acts of
freedom of speech and the right to assemble." The suit asserts
three claims:
1. That law enforcement retaliated against protestors for engaging
in activity protected under the First Amendment;
2. That law enforcement violated the Fourth Amendment by using
excessive force to seize protestors' freedom of movement; and
3. That law enforcement violated the protestors' due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment by using chemical irritants and
less-lethal munitions without providing warning and opportunity to
disperse.
The complaint states that two of the named plaintiffs, Nekima Levy
Armstrong and Marques Armstrong, have experienced ongoing lung and
voice issues after the officers fired less-lethal munitions and
chemical irritants into lawfully assembled demonstrations without
warning or order to disperse. The complaint also states that the
two other named plaintiffs, Terry Hempfling and Rachel Clark, have
experienced physical and emotional injury after officers shot them
with less-lethal munitions and the officers' "intimidating show of
force." The complaint includes photos of the plaintiffs'
significant bruising from the less-lethal munitions.
The defendants in the suit are the City of Minneapolis, the Chief
of the Minneapolis Police, a Lieutenant in the Minneapolis Police
Department and president of the Minneapolis Police Federation, the
Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety, a Colonel of the Minnesota
State Patrol, and two unidentified individuals who acted as agents
of the City of Minneapolis and Minnesota State Patrol.
Demonstrations across the country that arose in the wake of George
Floyd's murder were and continue to be met by law enforcement with
displays of force. The progression and outcome of this case could
inform additional, similar cases across the country. [GN]
MORGAN STANLEY: Hit with Class Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Former and current Morgan Stanley customers have filed a putative
class-action lawsuit alleging negligence and invasion of privacy
over the firm's failure to properly scrub decommissioned hardware
of personal information such as social security numbers, account
numbers and other personal data.
Morgan Stanley in early July began notifying brokers and customers
that some client information remained on hardware from two data
centers that were closed in 2016.
Filed in federal district court in New York City's second circuit,
the lawsuit also says the wirehouse learned in 2019, and informed
some state attorneys general this month, that computer servers
replaced in some branches cannot be located and may have contained
disks with unencrypted personal data.
"In addition to Morgan Stanley's failure to prevent the Data
Breach, Defendant failed to detect the Data Breach for years, and
when they did discover the Data Breach, it took them over a year,
possibly longer, to report it to the affected individuals and the
states' Attorneys General," the lawsuit said.
A Morgan Stanley spokeswoman declined to comment on the suit. The
firm had earlier said it had no evidence after working with outside
experts that any personal information had been recovered or
misused.
"We have continuously monitored the situation and have not detected
any unauthorized activity related to the matter," it said in
letters to clients seen by AdvisorHub that referenced only the 2016
data-center issue. "[I]n an abundance of caution, we wanted to make
you aware of this matter and what we are doing to protect you."
Affected individuals, some of whom were Smith Barney customers who
closed their accounts before Morgan Stanley bought the firm a
decade ago, can receive two years of free credit monitoring and
fraud detection services if they sign up directly with Experian by
October 31, according to the letters.
The lawsuit was filed by five residents of California, New York,
Florida and Illinois on behalf of an unspecified number of people
who received the letters, and does not specify the potential class
size. It seeks certification of a national class and a separate
"California subclass" (asserting two counts of unfair business
practices under California law).
"This case does not involve a breach of a computer system by a
third party, but rather an unauthorized disclosure of PII [personal
identifiable information] to unknown third parties," the lawsuit
said.
It did not specify a damage amount, but said plaintiffs were
injured by the "lost or diminished value" of their personal
identification data, the continued uncertainty and risk of identity
theft, out-of-pocket expenses they may incur to detect fraud and
lost opportunity costs.
"The missing equipment and servers contain everything unauthorized
third-parties need to illegally use Morgan Stanley's current and
former customers' PII to steal their identities and to make
fraudulent purchases, among other things," according to the suit.
Richard Gamen, one of the named plaintiffs, has filed a complaint
with the Federal Trade Commission and spent time "verifying the
legitimacy of the Notice of Data Breach, communicating with Morgan
Stanley representatives on the toll-free number supplied in the
notice, exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance
options, and self- monitoring their accounts," the lawsuit says.
"This time has been lost forever and cannot be recaptured."
The plaintiffs' lawyers at Morgan & Morgan, Clayeo C. Arnold and
The Consumer Protection Firm who filed the complaint did not
immediately respond to requests for comment on the potential size
of the class or an estimate of the actual and punitive damages
being sought. (The suit is captioned Sylvia Tillman, Amresh
Jaiijee, Vivian Yates, Richard Gamen, Cheryl Gamen on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated vs. Morgan Stanley
Smith Barney, LLC.)
In 2016, Morgan Stanley reached a $1 million settlement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to supervise a
broker who downloaded client data onto his personal computer. The
FTC determined that the data breach, which affected up to 350,000
accounts, was a result of a "glitch" and did not impose sanctions.
[GN]
MOTION PICTURE: Mishandles ERISA Plan, Endries et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
GREG ENDRIES; and DEE NICHOLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY HEALTH PLAN; BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF THE
MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY HEALTH PLAN; and CLAIMS REVIEW COMMITTEE OF
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY HEALTH PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06347 (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2020)
alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.
According to the complaint, in order to receive benefits under the
Motion Picture Industry Health Plan ("MPI Health Plan" or "Plan"),
participating union members such as the Plaintiffs must work a
sufficient number of hours during a six-month period: either 600
hours for newly-qualifying participants, or 400 hours thereafter.
As union members, however, each hour that they work for
participating employers results in these employers making
contributions to fund the Plan, regardless of whether the
Plaintiffs have worked a sufficient number of hours to qualify for
benefits during a relevant period.
The Plaintiffs were on track to make their hours when COVID-19 shut
down the motion picture industry in New York and Los Angeles, where
the Plaintiffs live and work, respectively. The Board of Directors
of the Plan, who are ERISA fiduciaries, recognized the problem
caused to many participants by this shutdown and responded by
extending 300 hours of credit, and later by extending waiver of
premiums for dependents as well as Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act (COBRA) subsidies, to participants who were
currently receiving benefits under the Plan and who needed to earn
400 hours by April or thereafter.
However, the Board left participants like the Plaintiffs out in the
cold, and refused to extend the hours, premium waiver for
dependents, or COBRA subsidies to them and others like them. These
actions have forced the Plaintiffs and others like them to either
pay for COBRA or other insurance coverage that they can ill afford
given their loss of employment, or to go without health insurance
during this dangerous health crisis.
In failing to extend hours, dependent premium waivers and COBRA
subsidies to the group of Plan participants similarly situated to
the Plaintiffs, the Board has violated its ERISA duty of loyalty,
which requires it to treat all Plan participants fairly and not to
arbitrarily favor one group of participants over another.
Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans provides financial
services. The Company offers managing pension, retirement, health
and welfare funds. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans
serves customers in the State of California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
E-mail: ehopkins@kantorlaw.net
- and -
Teresa S. Renaker, Esq.
Margo Hasselman Greenough, Esq.
Kirsten G. Scott, Esq.
RENAKER HASSELMAN SCOTT LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 653-1733
Facsimile: (415) 727-5079
E-mail: teresa@renakerhasselman.com
margo@renakerhasselman.com
kirsten@renakerhasselman.com
MYLAN NV: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Mylan N.V. between February 16,
2016 and May 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important August 25, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in securities
class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Mylan
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Mylan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1889.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.
The claims against Mylan arise from the Company's alleged
misrepresentations and omissions regarding rampant abuses of
federal quality control regulations, including at its Morgantown
facility. Under a scheme implemented by Mylan's President, Mylan
chemists manipulated quality control test data in order to create
the facade that Mylan's drugs had achieved passing quality control
results. In November 2016, a whistleblower reported Mylan's conduct
to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. As a result of its
violations, Mylan was ultimately forced to reveal that it would be
dramatically "restructuring" its Morgantown facility, including by
terminating hundreds of employees, and reported a surprise
quarterly loss on May 7, 2019. 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 25,
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-1889.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 achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
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]
NEBRASKA: Court Refuses to Certify Inmates Classes in Sabata Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a
Memorandum and Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned HANNAH SABATA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; DYLAN CARDEILHAC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; JAMES
CURTRIGHT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; JASON GALLE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; RICHARD GRISWOLD, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated; MICHAEL GUNTHER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; ANGELIC NORRIS, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; R. P., a
minor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
ISAAC REEVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated; ZOE RENA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated; and BRANDON SWEETSER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, SCOTT FRAKES, In his official
capacity as Director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services; HARBANS DEOL, In his official capacity as Director of
Health Services of the Nebraska Department of Correctional
Services; NEBRASKA BOARD OF PAROLE, JULIE MICEK, In her official
capacity as the Board of Parole Acting Parole Administrator; and
DOES, 1 to 20 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-3107 (D.
Neb.).
This is a putative class action lawsuit in which the Plaintiffs,
inmates of various Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
(NDCS) facilities, seek redress for alleged violations of their
civil and constitutional rights based on perceived deficiencies in
the Nebraska prison healthcare system.
The Plaintiffs allege that Nebraska state prisons are overcrowded,
under-resourced, and understaffed and that prisoners are
consistently deprived of adequate health care, including medical,
dental, and mental health care, and denied accommodations for their
disabilities. The Plaintiffs file causes of action under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, the Eighth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the
Rehabilitation Act (RA).
The Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They ask the Court to certify the
following class: "all persons who are now, or will in the future,
be subjected to the health care (including medical, mental health
and dental care) policies and practices of NDCS."
The Plaintiffs further seek to certify two subclasses, a disability
subclass described as "all persons with disabilities who are now,
or will in the future be, confined at any NDCS facility" and an
isolation subclass consisting of "all NDCS prisoners who are now,
or will in the future be, subject to conditions of confinement that
provide limited contact with other prisoners, strictly controlled
movement while out of cell, and out-of-cell time of less than
twenty-four hours per week."
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' proposed class and
subclasses do not meet the requirements outlined in Rule 23 for the
certification of a class-action lawsuit. The Court further
concludes certification is not warranted pursuant to binding case
law interpreting the class-certification requirements from the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme
Court.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to group together as a single class
the entire Nebraska prison population for the purpose of redressing
grievances regarding healthcare.
District Judge Brian C. Buescher states that this request is not
suitable for class treatment for several reasons as outlined in
this opinion, including the fact that inmates' individual medical
needs run the gamut from no health issues at all to significant
illnesses and conditions requiring frequent and considerable
treatment. The proposed solutions to the alleged deficiencies in
NDCS's healthcare system are likewise diverse, broad, and would
require individualized rather than classwide application. The
Plaintiffs' claims simply do not satisfy the commonality required
by the law, Judge Buescher says.
In addition, the Court declines to exercise authority over the
Nebraska prison system as the Plaintiffs request because doing so
would be contrary to the idea of federalism outlined in the United
States Constitution, Judge Buescher explains. The Nebraska prison
system is operated by the State of Nebraska, not the federal
government, and certainly not by the federal courts. Although this
Court stands ready to defend the civil rights inmates have under
the federal Constitution, it will not exercise its authority to
promote public-policy preferences that should be debated, funded,
and if enacted, implemented through the legislative and executive
branches of the State of Nebraska, Judge Buescher continues.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8ws3hfp from
Leagle.com
NEW DIRECTIONS: M.D. Florida Narrows Claims in Hering Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division, issued an Order granting in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned SUSAN HERING v. NEW DIRECTIONS
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, L.L.C.; and BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA,
INC., Case No. 6:19-cv-1727-Orl-37DCI (M.D. Fla.).
Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. moves to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint ("MTD"). Defendant New Directions
Behavioral Health, L.L.C. moves to join the MTD. On referral, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick recommends granting the Joinder
Motion and granting the MTD in part ("R&R"). The Plaintiff objects
to the R&R in part. The Defendants responded. On review, the Court
adopts the R&R in its entirety.
The Plaintiff's daughter (pseudonym, "Jane"), now twenty-years-old,
has suffered from anorexia nervosa since she was a pre-teen.
Anorexia nervosa is one of the most lethal psychiatric conditions.
The Plaintiff and her family are insured with Blue Cross, which
subcontracts the administration of its plans' behavioral health
benefits to New Directions. New Directions has repeatedly denied
coverage of residential treatment for Jane's anorexia nervosa,
claiming it's not medically necessary.
So the Plaintiff, on behalf of her daughter and others similarly
situated, sued the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and
improper denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1)(B).
To the extent equitable relief is unavailable under Section
1332(a)(1)(B), the Plaintiff seeks equitable relief under 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(a)(3)(A) and 1332(a)(3)(B). Blue Cross moved to
dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim and New
Directions moved to join the MTD. Magistrate Judge Irick recommends
granting the unopposed Joinder Motion and granting the MTD in
part--only dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(3) and relief of surcharge. The
Plaintiff objects to the R&R's dismissal recommendation and the
Defendants' responded.
The Court finds no clear error in the portions of the R&R without
objections and will not dismiss the Plaintiff's Section
1132(a)(1)(B) claims. The Court notes that "[A]n ERISA plaintiff
who has an adequate remedy under [Section 1132(a)(1)(B)] cannot
alternatively plead and proceed under [Section 1132(a)(3)]," citing
Ogden v. Blue Bell Creameries U.S.A., Inc., 348 F.3d 1284, 1287
(11th Cir. 2003).
The Plaintiff concedes that if the Court dismisses her Section
1132(a)(3) claims, surcharge is not an available remedy for the
remaining claims, so Magistrate Judge Irick correctly dismissed the
surcharge request.
Accordingly, the Court ordered and adjudged that:
1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick's Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of
this Order;
2. Defendant New Directions Behavioral Health, L.L.C.'s
Joinder in Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida's Motion to
Dismiss is GRANTED; and
3. Defendant Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.'s
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART:
a. Counts III and IV of Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint are DISMISSED; and
b. Plaintiff's request for surcharge or disgorgement is
DISMISSED; and
c. In all other respects, the MTD is DENIED.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 1, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8psvxo from Leagle.com.
NOVO NORDISK: 3rd Circuit Appeal Terminated
-------------------------------------------
Novo Nordisk A/S, et al. filed an appeal from a District Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Lehigh County Employees' Retirement
System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
Novo Nordisk A/S, Lars Rebien Sorensen and Jesper Brandgaard,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00209, (Filed Jan. 11, 2017), in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Lehigh County Employees Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System filed a response on Feb. 24, 2020.
The appeal was later terminated on March 17, 2020.
The appellate case was captioned as Lehigh County Employees Retire,
et al. v. Novo Nordisk A S, et al., Case No. 20-8016 (Filed Feb.
14, 2020), in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lehigh County
Employees' Retirement System seeks compensatory damages, reasonable
costs and expenses including attorneys' and expert fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other further relief under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Novo Nordisk is a pharmaceutical company focused on producing
insulin and other diabetes treatments. Plaintiffs allege that Novo
Nordisk connived with Sanofi, Eli Lilly and Merck to increase the
prices of their insulin drugs. Novo Nordisk floated American
Depositary Receipts (ADR) between April 30, 2015 and October 27,
2016. On news of its alleged price-fixing, the price of Novo
Nordisk ADRs declined from $40.94 per ADR on October 27 to $35.66
per ADR on October 28, a decline of roughly 13%.
Lehigh County Employees' Retirement System is a defined benefit
plan providing retirement, disability and death benefits to workers
within the County of Lehigh, Pennsylvania. It purchased Novo
Nordisk ADRs on the New York Stock Exchange and suffered damages.
Novo Nordisk is a global healthcare company based in Denmark
focusing on diabetes care and is one of the largest producers of
insulin medications. It maintains its U.S. headquarters at 800
Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro. Sorensen served as President and
Chief Executive Officer of Novo Nordisk while Brandgaard served as
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Respondents Lehigh County Employees Retirement
System; Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System; Don
Zuk; and Joseph Zaleski, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: 973 994 1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Joseph D. Daley, Esq
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
655 West Broadway. Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619 231 1058
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS
55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
- and -
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 973 623-3000
The Defendant-Petitioners Novo Nordisk A/S; Lars Rebien Sorensen;
Jesper Brandgaard; and Jacob Riis, are represented by:
Michael R. Griffinger, Esq.
Calvin K. May, Esq.
Brian J. McMahon, Esq.
Samuel I. Portnoy, Esq.
GIBBONS
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 973 596-4500
- and -
Neal A. Potischman, Esq.
James P. Rouhandeh, Esq.
David B. Toscano, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: 650 752-2000
P.F. CHANG'S: Chansue Kang Appeal to Ninth Circuit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellant Chansue Kang filed an appeal from a District Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Chansue Kang, et al. v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-02252-PA-SP, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Central California, Riverside.
The appellate case is captioned as Chansue Kang v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro, Inc., and DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 20-55138
(Filed Feb 7, 2020), in the United States Court of Appeals the
Ninth Circuit.
The suit alleges violation of fraud-related laws.
P. F. Chang's China Bistro is an American-based, Asian-themed,
casual dining restaurant chain founded in 1993 by Paul Fleming and
Philip Chiang.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Appellant Chansue Kang, an individual, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:
Brian Lee, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213 612 0988
- and -
Preston H. Lim, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM
DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: 310 201-2100
- and -
Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
One Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
Telephone: 213 612 0988
The Defendant-Appellee P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., an Arizona
Corporation, is represented by:
James Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY, PEARSON, BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Patrick J. Wingfield, Esq.
SKAJA, DANIELS, LISTER & PERMITO, LLP
960 Canterbury Place
Escondido, CA 92025
Telephone: 760 781 3464
PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL: Chamely Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON CHAMELY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.,
a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01483 (C.D.
Cal., July 27, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received telemarketing
messages to his cellular telephone number ending in 1884 from
Defendant on or about April 10, 2020, April 21, 2020 and July 9,
2020 without providing Defendant his express written consent to be
contacted using an automatic telephone dialing system.
Defendant allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing to
promote its services harming thousands of consumers in the process,
including Plaintiff.
Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc. is a mortgage
residential home lender. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSERG LAW, PA
20900 ne 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Appeal from Dismissal of Sgarlata Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
PayPal Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal from a ruling
in the class action suit entitled, Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-06956-EMC, is ongoing.
In November 2017, the company announced that it had suspended the
operations of TIO Networks ("TIO") as part of an ongoing
investigation of security vulnerabilities of the TIO platform.
On December 1, 2017, the company announced that it had identified
evidence of unauthorized access to TIO's network, including
locations that stored personal information of some of TIO's
customers and customers of TIO billers and the potential compromise
of personally identifiable information for approximately 1.6
million customers.
The company received a number of governmental inquiries, including
from state attorneys general, and the company may be subject to
additional governmental inquiries and investigations in the future.
In addition, on December 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Sgarlata v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-06956-EMC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer and Hamed Shahbazi,
the former chief executive officer of TIO (the "Defendants")
alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The initial complaint alleged that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or failed to disclose that TIO's data
security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its users, those vulnerabilities
threatened continued operation of TIO's platform, the Company's
revenues derived from TIO services were thus unsustainable, and
consequently, the Company overstated the benefits of the TIO
acquisition, and, as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between February 14, 2017 through December 1, 2017 and sought
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief.
On March 16, 2018, the Court appointed two new plaintiffs, not the
original plaintiff who filed the case, as interim co-lead
plaintiffs in the case and appointed two law firms as interim
co-lead counsel. On June 13, 2018, the interim co-lead plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint, which named TIO Networks ULC, TIO
Networks USA, Inc., and John Kunze (at that time, the Company's
Vice President, Global Consumer Products and Xoom) as additional
defendants.
The first amended complaint was purportedly brought on behalf of
all persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's
securities between November 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The
amended complaint alleged that the Company's and TIO's November 10,
2017 announcement of the suspension of TIO's operations was false
and misleading because the announcement only disclosed security
vulnerabilities on TIO's platform, rather than an actual security
breach that Defendants were allegedly aware of at the time of the
announcement.
Defendants' filed their motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on July 13, 2018 and the Court granted the motion,
without prejudice, on December 13, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on January 14, 2019. The second amended complaint
alleges substantially the same theory of liability as the first
amended complaint, but no longer names Hamed Shabazi as a
defendant.
The remaining Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on March 15, 2019, and a hearing was held on July
16, 2019. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with
prejudice on September 18, 2019; plaintiffs have filed a notice of
appeal.
PayPal said, "We may be subject to additional litigation relating
to TIO's data security platform or the suspension of TIO's
operations in the future."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a technology platform and digital
payments company that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf
of consumers and merchants worldwide. PayPal Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Wins Bid to Deny Class Cert. in Pruitt Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois issued a
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motions to
deny class certification in the case captioned DERELL PRUITT and
RONALD PETERSON, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated laborers v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP, THE
SEGERDAHL CORP., VISUAL PAK COMPANY, MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., and
METROPOLITAN GRAPHICS ARTS, INC., Case No. 16-cv-5079 (N.D. Ill.).
The Plaintiffs are to file a status report stating whether they
intend to dismiss the case or proceed on behalf of the two named
plaintiffs individually. If no status report is filed, the case
will be dismissed, District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., ruled.
The Plaintiffs allege they were racially discriminated against when
applying for assignments for temporary work at a staffing agency.
The current Named Plaintiffs are Derell Pruitt and Ronald Peterson,
African Americans who applied for work at Defendant Personnel
Staffing Group, LLC d/b/a MVP (MVP), a staffing agency. MVP accepts
applicants for temporary positions at other companies, selects
qualified applicants, and sends them to the client companies. The
Plaintiffs claim that the Client Companies and MVP discriminate
against African American applicants and in favor of Latino
applicants, both when MVP selects applicants to send to the work
sites and when the Client Companies select workers at the site.
The Plaintiffs brought a purported class action against MVP and the
Client Companies on May 9, 2016. They seek to represent a class of
"[a]ll African-Americans who sought work assignments through the
MVP Waukegan Branch Office and were eligible to work at one or more
of the Defendant Client Companies at any time between May 9, 2012
and the date of judgment and who, on one or more occasion, were not
assigned to work at one of the Defendant Client Companies by MVP."
They accuse the Defendants with violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 for both disparate treatment and adverse
impact, and Civil Rights Act of 1866, for race-based
discrimination.
In their Motions, the Defendants challenge only the Named
Plaintiffs' adequacy as class representatives. The Defendants argue
that the Named Plaintiffs are so uninvolved in the litigation and
know so little about it that they cannot adequately represent the
absent class members.
For the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure to be satisfied, the claims and interests of the
named Plaintiffs must not conflict with those of the class, the
class representatives must have sufficient interest in the outcome
of the case, and class counsel must be experienced and competent.
Among other things, the Court finds that the Named Plaintiffs fail
to meet the bar for knowledge of and involvement in a case, and,
therefore, they are not adequate class representatives under Rule
23(a)(4).
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yclsldyx from
Leagle.com
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 30 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.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation (NASDAQ: PPC)
PPC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 9, 2017
- June 3, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 4, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pilgrims-pride-corporation-information-request-form?prid=8272&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its
executives had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to
fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and
continuing through at least early 2017; (2) the Company received
competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class Period,
from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
Enphase Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENPH)
ENPH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 26,
2019 - June 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/enphase-energy-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8272&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Enphase
Energy, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) its revenues, both U.S. and
international, were inflated; (2) the Company engaged in improper
deferred revenue accounting practices; (3) the Company's reported
base points expansion in gross margins were overstated; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: WINS)
WINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 31, 2018
- July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8272&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ultimate
repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly uncertain;
(ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a significant impact
on the Company's financial and operating condition; (iii)
weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its financial reporting
persisted despite the Company's repeated assurances to investors
that it was taking steps to remediate these weaknesses; (iv) the
foregoing issues, among others, made the resignation of Wins's
independent auditor foreseeably likely; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. 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
www.zlk.com [GN]
PLAYAGS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP discloses that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against PlayAGS Inc. ("PlayAGS" or the "Company") (NYSE: AGS) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, and indexed under
20-cv-01428, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
PlayAGS securities between August 2, 2018, and August 7, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased PlayAGS securities during
the class period, you have until August 24, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
PlayAGS is a designer and supplier of electronic gaming machines.
It operates with three business segments: (i) electronic gaming
machines ("EGM"), which comprises 95% of the Company's revenue and
provides 380 game titles on EGM cabinets; (ii) table products,
including live felt table games, side bet offerings, progressives,
signage, and other ancillary table game equipment; and (iii)
interactive, which offers social casino games including online
versions of the Company's game titles.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) PlayAGS was experiencing
challenges in its business in Oklahoma; (ii) as a result, the
Company's recurring revenue would be negatively impacted; (iii)
PlayAGS was experiencing challenges in its Interactive business
segment, including delays in securing regulatory approvals and
relevant licenses; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, PlayAGS was
reasonably likely to record a goodwill impairment; and (v) 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 August 7, 2019, PlayAGS reported a net loss of $7.6 million for
the second quarter 2019, which included a $3.5 million impairment
to goodwill and $1.3 million impairment to intangible assets of the
Company's iGaming reporting unit, because of extended regulatory
timelines which delayed revenues.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.99 per share, or
nearly 52%, to close at $8.31 per share on August 8, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
Erswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bracken Says Collection Letter 'Deceptive'
--------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS BRACKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01991-L (N.D. Tex., July 28, 2020) is a
class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Plaintiff is allegedly obligated to pay a debt to Defendant.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff received a collection letter
from Defendant on or about September 17, 2019. However, the letter
falsely and deceptively misrepresented to Plaintiff by offering
Plaintiff a "Savings Plan" or a discount in an attempt to collect
an outstanding debt.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a collection agency. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
Shayan Elahi, Esq.
SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
13601 Preston Rd E770
Dallas, TX 75240
Tel: (214) 494-1668
Fax: (469) 669-0786
Emails: shawn@jaffer.law
shayan@jaffer.law
PRIMARY RESPONSE: Settles Wage Class Action for $2.9 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Law Times, reports that the parties
to a proposed class action for the alleged unpaid wages of and
unlawful deductions against security guards have agreed upon a
settlement amount of $2.9 million.
In Horner v. Primary Response Inc. et al., plaintiff Kionna Horner
initiated the action on behalf of security guards employed by
Primary Response in Ontario from Feb. 27, 2011 to Jan. 15, 2018,
except for those hired under a collective agreement. Garda Canada
Security Corporation, which bought Primary Response on Jan. 15,
2018, was also impleaded as a defendant.
If approved by the court, the settlement will fully and finally
resolve the matter. Under the agreement, the defendants will
consent to the certification of the class action and will pay the
settlement amount, which includes interest, costs, administration
expenses, taxes and class counsel fees and disbursements.
The parties went through a two-day mediation process to reach the
settlement with the assistance of William Kaplan, an experienced
mediator.
The statement of claim for the class action, launched in August
2018, alleged that defendant Primary Response breached the
Employment Standards Act, 2000 and the employment contracts by
asking the security guards to be present for work at least fifteen
minutes early without the corresponding compensation, by unlawfully
averaging the overtime pay of the security guards over a two-week
pay period despite the expiry of the overtime averaging agreement
and by making unlawful uniform deductions from payroll.
The proposed class action also claimed that Primary Response and
Garda, which was alleged should be treated as a single employer
under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and as common employers under
the Employment Standards Act, should be held liable for breach of
their duty of good faith and for negligence in their performance of
the employment contracts.
Goldblatt Partners LLP acted on behalf of the security guards. Josh
Mandryk, an associate at the firm, told the Toronto Star that the
settlement would furnish "access to justice for thousands of
precarious workers who'd otherwise face significant barriers to
enforcing their rights at work."
"This settlement provides a speedy resolution to the historical
claims of the class members, which we hope comes as welcome
financial support during the COVID-19 crisis," Christine Davies of
Goldblatt Partners told the Star. [GN]
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Settles ERISA Class Action for $5.8 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Princeton University's trustees have agreed to
shell out $5.8 million and temporarily cap retirement plans'
recordkeeping fees to resolve a proposed ERISA class action
accusing the school of letting workers waste their savings on bad
investments. [GN]
PROASSURANCE CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 17 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 ProAssurance Corporation (PRA) securities
class action lawsuit:
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 company 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 link 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
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.
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
PROSHARES ULTRA: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ("UCO" or "the Fund") (NYSEArca: UCO) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 6,
2020 and April 27, 2020, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
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. UCO experienced huge market volatility
caused by dampened demand for oil due to the coronavirus pandemic
and both increased supply and decreased prices caused by the
Russia/Saudi oil price war. A massive influx of investor funds
heightened a number of problems for the Fund, causing it to
approach positional and regulatory limits. Combined with other
issues, this meant UCO could no longer pursue its passive
investment strategy as represented in the Fund's Registration
Statement. Based on these facts, the Fund's public statements were
false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth
about UCO, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]
PROSHARES ULTRA: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces the filing of
a federal securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the shares of the ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil
exchange traded fund ("ETF") (NYSEArca: UCO) ("UCO") between March
6, 2020 and April 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of the ProShares Ultra
Bloomberg Crude Oil exchange ETF and incurred losses are urged to
contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information
concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of the ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ETF, you may, no later than September 28,
2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more
about your rights as an investor in the shares of the ProShares
Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ETF.
UCO is an exchange traded fund ("ETF") purportedly designed to
reflect the performance of crude oil as measured by the price of
West Texas Intermediate ("WTI") sweet, light crude oil futures
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange. ETFs like UCO
provide one of the primary means investors can gain exposure to
fluctuations in oil prices. WTI is the main oil benchmark for North
America, as it is sourced from the United States, primarily from
the Permian Basin. The main delivery and price settlement point for
WTI is Cushing, Oklahoma.
According to the filed complaint defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
-- extraordinary market volatility caused by decreased demand
for oil from the corona virus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war;
-- a massive influx of investor capital into the Fund, totaling
hundreds of millions of dollars, in a matter of days, which
increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened illiquidity in the WTI
futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the
Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends
exacerbated by the Offering itself);
-- a sharp divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI
oil markets, leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil
storage space in Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to
account for the excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to
the WTI May 2020 futures contract.
As a result, UCO could not continue to pursue the passive
investment strategy represented in the Registration Statement,
causing its results to significantly deviate from its purported
benchmark.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-477
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
E-mail: gstone@whafh.com
kcooper@whafh.com [GN]
QUAKERTOWN AUTO: Underpays Laborers, Alvarado Claims
----------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ALVARADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. QUAKERTOWN AUTO CAR WASH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-03658 (E.D. Pa., July 28, 2020) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Laborer for three years
until around March 2020.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff often worked over 40 hours
per week, but he was only paid straight-time rate by Defendant for
all hours worked.
Quakertown Auto Car Wash, Inc. provides car wash service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Tel: (215) 884-2491
Website: www.winebrakelaw.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Placeholder Class Cert. Bid Filed in Amer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as WAFAA AMER, and CAROL HOWARD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01161-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
themselves as the class representative, and appoint their attorneys
as class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
RAUSCH STURM: Makurat Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KARI MAKURAT, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RAUSCH STURM
ISREAL ENERSON & HORNIK LLP and ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP LLC, Case
No. 20-cv-1162 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff filed a "placeholder"
motion for class certification in order to prevent against a
"buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use
to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
meldridge@ademilaw.com
jfruchter@ademilaw.com
bslatky@ademilaw.com
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Macedonia Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff-Petitioner Macedonia Distributing Inc. files a
petition for leave to appeal from the District Court's order
denying its motion for class certification, entered on February 7,
2020, in the lawsuit captioned as MACEDONIA DISTRIBUTING INC. v.
S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01692-JVS-KES, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.
The appellate case is captioned as Macedonia Distributing Inc. v. S
L Distribution Company, LLC, Case No. 20-80040, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The questions presented are:
-- Is it manifest error to hold that a named plaintiff lacks
standing to bring a class action as a representative plaintiff
where the plaintiff has standing to pursue its own claims
individually?
-- Is it manifest error to hold that a named plaintiff's claims
are atypical based on a named plaintiff’s standing to respond to
possible affirmative defenses without considering whether such
affirmative defenses threaten to become a major
focus of the litigation?
-- Is it manifest error to hold that a named plaintiff is an
inadequate class representative based on the plaintiff’s
“standing” to respond to possible affirmative defenses without
determining there to be any actual, not purely speculative
conflicts that go to the heart of the litigation?
On August 26, 2019, Macedonia filed its motion for class
certification. Macedonia initially sought to certify a class
consisting of all 182 franchisees whose franchises were repurchased
by S-L as part of a California-wide restructuring of its
distribution business.
Macedonia Distributing sued S-L Distribution Company under the
California Franchise Relations Act and California’s Unfair
Competition Law. In the Summer of 2017, S-L terminated Macedonia's
and other putative class members’ distributorships, without good
cause, as part of a system-wide termination of class members'
franchise agreements.
Macedonia is a family-owned and operated small business that sold
and distributed snack foods. It was one of 182 businesses in
California that had entered into a distribution agreement with S-L,
a subsidiary of food manufacturer Snyder’s-Lance, Inc.
S-L Distribution is a subsidiary of Snyder's-Lance, Inc. S-L is a
wholesale distributor of various snack food products manufactured
by subsidiaries and affiliates of Snyder's-Lance, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff-Petitioner, Macedonia Distributing Inc., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Annick Persinger, Esq.
Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
Tycko & Zavareei, LLP
483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: 510 254-6808
The Defendant-Respondent, S L Distribution Company, LLC, is
represented by:
Michael R. Borasky, Esq.
ECKERT, SEAMANS,
CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
600 Grant Street, 44th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: 412 566-6060
- and -
Dale Joseph Giali, Esq.
Mayer Brown LLP
350 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213 229-5143
- and -
Paul D. Clement, Esq.
George W. Hicks, Jr., Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: 202 389-5000
SFM LLC: Knudson Sues Over Failure to Provide Suitable Seats
------------------------------------------------------------
CHERIE KNUDSON, individually and as representatives of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SFM, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, registered in California as SF Markets, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20STCV28435
(Cal. Sup. Ct., July 28, 2020) brings this complaint against
Defendants for their alleged violation of the Private Attorney
General Act of 2004.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide their checkers
and/or cashiers, including him, with seats pursuant to Section 14
of wage Order 7-2001.
Moreover, Plaintiff sent a notice to the California Labor Workforce
Development Agency and to Defendant by certified mail, but they did
not respond after more than 65 days have elapsed.
SFM, LLC owns and operates a network of specialty grocery stores
nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
K.L. Myles, Esq.
Michael D. Carr, Esq.
KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Tel: (818) 547-5000
Fax: (818) 547-5329
Emails: aej@kpclegal.com
klm@kpclegal.com
mdc@kpclegal.com
- and –
Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 2150
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 247-9111
Fax: (818) 247-9222
Email: jehdian@lawyer.com
SIX FLAGS: Continues to Defend Wage-Meal Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit initiated by
current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom.
On April 20, 2018, a complaint was filed against the company
(Holdings) and Six Flags Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of
Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of
current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom.
On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed adding Park
Management Corp. as a defendant.
The amended complaint alleges violations of California law
governing, among other things, employee overtime, meal and rest
breaks, wage statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid
wages, and related penalties, and attorneys fees and costs.
Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and we have accrued our best
estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our
consolidated financial statements."
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Still Faces Class Suit Over Staff Overtime, Rest Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to alleged
violations of Massachusetts law governing employee overtime and
rest breaks.
On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one
of the company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of
current and former employees of Six Flags New England.
The complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts law governing
employee overtime and rest breaks, and seeks damages in the form of
unpaid wages for overtime and meal breaks and related penalties.
On July 2, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification of two classes, an overtime class and a meal break
class. On November 8, 2018, the court granted class certification
for the overtime class and denied class certification for the meal
break class.
On June 20, 2019, in response to competing motions for summary
judgment on the application of an overtime wage exemption
applicable to amusement parks that operate no more than 150 days
per year, the court agreed that the defendant park did not operate
more than 150 days in 2013, 2014, and 2016, but found that it did
operate more than 150 days in 2015, 2017 and 2018, for which the
defendant park would owe overtime wages.
On September 26, 2019, the company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to 2017 and 2018, because the
defendant park relied on a separate overtime wage law exemption
applicable to a separate and distinct operation of the business in
those years.
On December 6, 2019, the court denied the company's motion for
reconsideration.
Six Flags said, "We continue to vigorously defend ourselves against
this litigation. However, there can be no assurance regarding the
ultimate outcome of this litigation and we have accrued our best
estimate of exposure, the amount of which is not material to our
consolidated financial statements."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Bid for Initial Settlement Approval Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as SHELLY LOUANGAMATH, v. THE
SPECTRANETICS CORPORATION,, Case No. 4:18-cv-03634-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.
The Court said it need not resolve the specific amount of the
incentive award at this time, however, as that matter will be
conclusively determined at the Final Fairness and Approval Hearing.
However, the Plaintiff "should be mindful of addressing these
issues and providing appropriate detail and documentation in
connection with their motion for final approval and motion for a
service enhancement award." The Plaintiff may submit a revised
motion for preliminary approval within 30 days, the Court said.
Shelly Louangamath brings this putative class action on behalf of
all non-exempt hourly employees who worked at the Defendant's
California facilities at any time between April 20, 2014 and the
date that final judgment is entered in this action.
The Plaintiff alleges that Spectranetics failed to provide legally
compliant meal and rest periods, compensate
employees for all hours worked at the correct rate of pay,
reimburse employees for expenses, and provide accurate written wage
statements.
Spectranetics is a medical device manufacturer headquartered in
Colorado and incorporated in Delaware.[CC]
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Leon Must Notify Class Members, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL LEON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS, INC., IVAN
BERGSTEIN, RON BENTSUR, DARREN CLINE, ALAN FORMAN, DANIEL HUME,
MARK SARD, AND KENNETH ZUERBLIS, Case No. 20-CV-3931 (RA)
(S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued an order directing the Plaintiff to publish a
notice advising members of the purported plaintiff class of the
pendency of the action.
On May 20, 2020, Plaintiff Michael Leon filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of a class of public stockholders of Stemline
Therapeutics, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Sections
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act)
and Rule 14d-9.
Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act (PSLRA), requires that:
Not later than 20 days after the date on which the complaint is
filed, the plaintiff or plaintiffs shall cause to be published, in
a widely circulated national business-oriented publication or wire
service, a notice advising members of the purported plaintiff
class--(I) of the pendency of the action, the claims asserted
therein, and the purported class period, and (II) that, not later
than 60 days after the date on which the notice is published, any
member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the purported class.
The PSLRA also requires that not later than 90 days after the date
on which notice is published, the Court shall consider any motion
made by a purported class member in response to the notice, and
shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the
purported plaintiff class that the Court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interests of the class
members. See id. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).
The Court directs the Plaintiff to file a copy of the notice on ECF
once it is published. Members of the purported class shall have
until 60 days from the Plaintiff's publishing of the required
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiffs. Once
Plaintiff has filed a copy of its notice on the docket, the Court
shall set a conference to consider any motions for appointment of
lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation. That
conference shall be held within 90 days of the notice's
publication. Upon scheduling the conference, the Court will also
set a deadline for the service and filing of the oppositions to any
motion for appointment of lead plaintiff.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 1, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y7tmyrqg from Leagle.com.
TACO BELL: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Cota Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JULISSA COTA, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TACO BELL CORP., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:20-cv-01473-LAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2020) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated persons, to secure redress against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act ("UCRA"), the
lawsuit contends.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers since Defendant's website,
https://www.tacobell.com/, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of the ADA.
Taco Bell is an American chain of fast food restaurants based out
of Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055
Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com
TAX RISE: Sadr-Arhami Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
HOMAYOUN SADR-ARHAMI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TAX RISE INC.; ESSAM ABDULLAH
A.K.A. SAM PRICE; FIDELITY TAX RELIEF LLC; BRIDGLEY INC.; ALEEVLY
INC.; PRICE HOLDINGS, INC.; OPTIMA ADVOCATES, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:20-cv-06862 (C.D.
Cal., July 30, 2020) is an action brought by the Plaintiff for
himself and others similarly situated seeking damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendants in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully
contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47. U.S.C. Section 227 et
seq. ("TCPA"), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.
According to the complaint, Defendants contacted Plaintiff via text
message on his cellular telephone ending in -2309, in an effort to
sell or solicit their services, beginning in or around February
2019.
Plaintiff and Defendants engaged in conversation related to
Defendants' services. Ultimately, Plaintiff chose not to contract
Defendants' services. Plaintiff called Defendant and asked them to
cease contacting him. However, Plaintiff's efforts to get
Defendants to cease its automated barrage of solicitations were to
no avail, and Defendants continued to harass and annoy him with
text messages.
Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendants' services.
Accordingly, Defendants and their agents never received Plaintiff's
prior express consent to receive unsolicited text messages.
Plaintiff contends that -- based upon information and belief,
including without limitation his experiences, especially his
experience of being called after expressly requesting that
Defendants cease text messaging him -- that Defendants lacks
reasonable policies and procedures to avoid the violations of the
TCPA.
Tax Rise Inc. and Fidelity Tax Relief LLC both offer tax debt
relief and tax debt settlement services to consumers.
Bridgley Inc. and Optima Advocates Inc. provide financial
consulting and planning services to consumers.
Aleevly Inc. and Price Holdings, Inc. both offer debt relief
services to consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
TD GENERAL: Has Unique Defense to 'Business Interruption' Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that a coverage dispute lawsuit filed
in Ontario mistakenly alleges that TD General Insurance writes
business interruption coverage, the insurer says.
A proposed Ontario class action filed July 6 alleges TD and dozens
of other insurers are in breach of contract for refusing to pay out
on business interruption claims arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Allegations against the insurers have not been proven in court.
TD "provides business interruption insurance to class members with
its property insurance contracts," lawyers for Koskie Minksy and
Merchant Law group wrote in that proposed class action.
But data provided to regulators indicate that the property and
casualty subsidiaries of Toronto-Dominion Bank did not write any
commercial property insurance in 2019.
"TD does not offer business interruption insurance and believe our
inclusion in the case is an error," a spokesperson for TD Insurance
told Canadian Underwriter.
Security National ranked sixth - with 4.48% market share in 2019 -
on the list of Canada's largest property and casualty insurers in
the 2020 Canadian Underwriter Statistical Guide. The Security
National group also includes TD Home and Auto, Primmum and TD
General. In Ontario, TD ranks fourth in home and auto by market
share.
Because TD does not write business interruption coverage, it was
released from a different proposed class-action lawsuit filed this
past April in Saskatchewan, a TD Insurance spokesperson said.
The representative plaintiff in the Saskatchewan case is JKT
Holdings Ltd., which operates Memories restaurant. JKT bought its
business interruption insurance from a different insurer. Because
it is a proposed class action, the law firm representing Memories
(Merchant) named several of Canada's largest insurers in addition
to Memories' own insurer.
The owner of Memories, Thomas Siarkos, told Canadian Underwriter
earlier his business lost income because of a provincial order
issued this past March restricting Saskatchewan restaurants to
takeout and delivery only. [GN]
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Garity et al. Sue over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD GARITY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; L. PATRICK
GAGE; LARRY EDWARDS; GAREN BOHLIN; STEVEN BOYD; JEFFREY A.
CHODAKEWITZ; JOHN G. FREUND; GERRI HENWOOD; GUY MACDONALD; KEITH
MAHER; NANCY J. WYSENSKI; LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY; and TTP
MERGER SUB, INC., Defendants, Case 1:20-cv-00956-UNA (D.Del., July
16, 2020) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The class action stems from a proposed transaction announced on
June 24, 2020, pursuant to which Tetraphase will be acquired by La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company as Parent and TTP Merger Sub, Inc. as
Merger Sub.
On June 24, 2020, Tetraphase's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with La
Jolla. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
commenced a tender offer to purchase all of Tetraphase's
outstanding common stock for $2.00 per share in cash and one
contingent value right ("CVR"). The Tender Offer was set to expire
on July 27, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, Defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to
the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement
false and misleading.
The Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
Company's financial projections. With respect to the Company's
financial projections, the Solicitation Statement fails to
disclose, for each set of projections: (i) all line items used to
calculate (a) EBIT and (b) Unlevered Free Cash Flow; and (ii) a
reconciliation of all non-GAAP to GAAP metrics. Second, the
Solicitation Statement omits material information regarding the
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in connection
with the Proposed Transaction, Janney Montgomery Scott LLC.
* * *
La Jolla and Tetraphase announced the closing of La Jolla's
acquisition of Tetraphase on July 28. La Jolla acquired Tetraphase
for $43.0 million in upfront cash plus potential future cash
payments of up to $16.0 million pursuant to contingent value rights
(CVRs). The holders of the CVRs are entitled to receive payments of
up to an additional $16.0 million in the aggregate upon the
achievement of certain net sales of XERAVA in the United States.
Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. biopharmaceutical products. The
Company offers antibiotics to treat multi-drug resistant bacterial
infections. Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals serves patients in the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Marshall P. Dees
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: mdees@holzerlaw.com
TGI FRIDAY'S: Court Narrows Claims in Troncoso Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned SOLANGE
TRONCOSO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. TGI
FRIDAY'S INC., INVENTURE FOODS, INC., and UTZ QUALITY FOODS, LLC,
Case No. 19 Civ. 2735 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).
For the reasons set forth in the Opinion, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss is granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claims against
Utz and TGIF, and granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claim for
injunctive relief, but is otherwise denied.
Plaintiff Solange Troncoso purchased a bag of snack chips labeled
TGI Fridays Potato Skins Snacks, believing the chips to contain
real potato skins. She later learned, to her dismay, that they did
not. Plaintiff sued Inventure Foods, Inc. (Inventure), the company
that manufactures the snack chips; Utz Quality Foods, LLC (Utz),
the parent company of Inventure; and TGI Friday's Inc. (TGIF),
which licenses its trademark and brand name to Inventure for
display on the snack chips.
Under a theory of diversity jurisdiction, the Plaintiff asserts
state-law claims for false and deceptive advertising under New York
General Business Law (GBL), as well as a claim for common-law
fraud.
The Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, or in the alternative, to dismiss Utz and TGIF as
Defendants. The Defendants also move to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claim seeking injunctive relief for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). The Defendants argue, among
other things, that the Plaintiff cannot show that she is likely to
suffer any future injury because she alleged that she has ceased
purchasing the snack chips and will not rely on any representations
made by Defendants concerning the snack chips until their packaging
is modified so that it no longer includes a misrepresentation.
District Judge Katherine Polk Failla opines that the Plaintiff
failed to allege an intent to purchase the snack chips in the
future and, therefore, she has not established a likelihood of
future injury sufficient to show standing. Her claim for injunctive
relief is accordingly dismissed.
The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff's fraud claim must
fail, because she failed to plausibly allege that a
misrepresentation had been made. The Court disagrees.
Judge Failla opines, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
plausibly alleged that the packaging contained a false
representation that the snack chips contained potato peels, and
that she reasonably relied upon that representation. Hence, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's common-law fraud
claim is denied.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybmb8327 from Leagle.com
TOTAL GAS: Court Dismisses Long Beach Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss in the case captioned CITY OF LONG BEACH, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH
AMERICA, INC., TOTAL, S.A., and TOTAL GAS & POWER, LTD., Case No.
19 Civ. 8725 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).
The class action involves futures contracts for natural gas. The
complaint alleges that the three defendants Total Gas & Power North
America (Total Gas) and Total Gas & Power, Ltd. (Total Ltd.),
unlawfully manipulated various indices that are used to price
natural gas contracts traded at four hubs in the Southwestern
United States.
The Plaintiff, the City of Long Beach, California, (Long Beach),
claims that this conduct caused it to pay artificially inflated
prices for natural gas that it purchased at one such hub. On behalf
of itself and others similarly situated, Long Beach raises claims
for damages under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, restitution under
the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and restitution and
damages under the law of unjust enrichment.
Total S.A. and Total Ltd. argue that (1) the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over them and (2) Long Beach fails to allege plausibly
that they are directly or derivatively liable for the alleged
wrongdoing of Total Gas.
Total Gas argues that (1) Long Beach lacks Article III standing (2)
its claims are untimely, (3) it has not pled antitrust standing as
required for its Sherman Act claims, (4) it in any event fails to
state claims for unlawful monopolization or attempted
monopolization and (5) its UCL and unjust enrichment claims fail as
a matter of law.
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan opines that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over Total S.A. and Total Ltd. with respect to all the
claims asserted against them in the complaint.
Judge Kaplan also writes, among other things, that the Plaintiff
has failed to identify an anticompetitive practice of a type which
the antitrust laws were intended to prohibit. Judge Kaplan adds
that the actual injury that Long Beach alleges is that, as a buyer
of natural gas, it lost money because the alleged market
manipulation moved the Monthly Index Prices in directions
unfavorable to its contracts. While this injury is claimed to have
been the consequence of Total Gas's conduct, Long Beach has failed
to show that the conduct was anticompetitive within the meaning of
the antitrust laws.
Accordingly, Total S.A.'s and Total Ltd.'s motion to dismiss and
Total Gas's motion to dismiss are granted, all for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted and the first motion on
the additional ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8wxjbrv from
Leagle.com
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.--scera@cerallp.com, Pamela A. Markert,
Esq.--pmarkert@cerallp.com, CERA LLP; Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.,
Seth R. Lesser, Esq., Morgan Stacey, Esq., KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER
LLP, 1250 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 200, in Washington, DC;
Daniel J. Sponseller, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. SPONSELLER, 409
Broad Street, Suite 200, in Sewickley, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for
the Plaintiff.
Brad Schoenfeldt, Esq.--bschoenfeldt@gibsondunn.com, William S.
Scherman, Esq.--wscherman@gibsondunn.com, David Debold,
Esq.--ddebold@gibsondunn.com, Jason Fleischer,
Esq.--jfleischer@gibsondunn.com, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Attorneys for the Defendants.
U.S. BANCORP: Cal. App. Flips Williams Wage & Hour Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four,
issued an opinion reversing the Trial Court's order dismissing the
Plaintiff's class claims and compelling arbitration of his
individual claims in the case captioned SCOTT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff
and Appellant v. U.S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. A156226 (Cal. App.).
Judge Alison M. Tucher notes that in a class action, an order
denying certification to a proposed class does not preclude an
absent member of the putative class from later seeking to certify
an identical class in a second action, citing Smith v. Bayer Corp.
(2011) 564 U.S. 299, 312-316 (Smith); and Bridgeford v. Pacific
Health Corp. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1034, 1041-1044 (Bridgeford).)
In this case, the Court is called upon to decide a closely related
question: whether collateral estoppel bars an absent member in a
putative class that was initially certified, but later decertified,
from subsequently pursuing an identical class action.
The Court concludes that the rule of Smith and Bridgeford applies
equally in this context. The Court concludes that under California
law, an order decertifying a class has no preclusive effect on
absent class members.
Accordingly, the Court reverses the Trial Court's order dismissing
the Plaintiff's class claims with prejudice and compelling
arbitration of his individual claims. The matter is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Mr. Williams
shall recover his costs on appeal.
Judge Tracie L. Brown concurs, while Stuart R. Pollak dissents.
Factual and Procedural Background
Two lawsuits are at issue here. The first of them, Burakoff et al.
v. U.S. Bancorp (Super. Ct., L.A. County, 2008, No. BC341430)
(Burakoff), was a class action brought in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court in 2005 by Robert Burakoff and Mohamed Alakozai,
seeking restitution of overtime wages and wage deductions, waiting
time penalties, and meal and rest breaks. In the Burakoff action,
the named plaintiffs alleged they worked for U.S. Bancorp. Subclass
A was those "who worked more than 40 hours in a week or 8 hours in
a day, but did not receive overtime pay," and Subclass B was those
who were illegally required to bear the cost of their business
expenses.
On May 8, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
Burakoff and Alakozai's motion for class certification, certifying
a class of "[a]ll individuals who are or were employed by Defendant
as Investment Financial Consultants in the State of California" for
a period running through the date of the order, and certifying the
two requested subclasses. The court ordered that notice be given to
class members.
The Plaintiff in the present action, Scott Williams, joined U.S.
Bancorp as a financial consultant in May 2007. He immediately
became a member of the Burakoff putative class, and presumably
received notice after that class was certified the following year.
Then on April 23, 2010, he filed his own class action against U.S.
Bancorp Investments, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp in the San Francisco
Superior Court, similarly alleging causes of action for, among
other things, unpaid overtime and unpaid meal-period premiums.
U.S. Bancorp demurred to the first amended complaint on the ground
Williams was part of the certified class in the Burakoff action
then pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The trial court
determined Williams's case was "founded upon the same primary
rights, states substantially the same causes of action, and
involves substantially the same parties" as the Burakoff action,
and so it stayed the case until the proceedings in Burakoff
concluded.
Decertification and Settlement in Burakoff
After the parties in Burakoff engaged in extensive discovery around
class issues, U.S. Bancorp moved to decertify the class. In May
2011, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted the motion as to
Subclass A, decertifying this overtime subclass on the ground its
alleged members lacked sufficient commonality. The court concluded
it would be required to conduct numerous case-by-case inquiries
into such matters as the amount of time the individual class
members spent on various job duties and their level of autonomy in
carrying out their work in order to determine whether each
individual member fell within various exemptions from state and
federal overtime pay laws. The court denied the motion as to
Subclass B, allowing the claims for unreimbursed business expenses
to go forward on a class-wide basis.
The following year, the parties settled Burakoff. The named
plaintiffs agreed to release all their claims against U.S. Bancorp,
and the members of Subclass B released their claims for unpaid
business expenses. The trial court approved the settlement
agreement and entered judgment accordingly. Williams participated
in the Burakoff settlement and received compensation as a member of
Subclass B. But he did not, nor did any of the other absent members
of alleged Subclass A, release his wage and hour claims.
Arbitration Demand and Earlier Appeal
U.S. Bancorp then demanded in the present action that Williams drop
his class claims and arbitrate his individual claims. U.S. Bancorp
cited an agreement Williams had signed that required arbitration of
individual disputes and that prohibited arbitration of claims
alleged as class claims until class certification had been denied,
or the class decertified. When Williams did not agree to arbitrate
his individual claims, U.S. Bancorp brought a motion to compel
arbitration and to dismiss the first amended complaint. The
Defendant argued the Burakoff decertification order collaterally
estopped Williams from relitigating the appropriateness of class
certification because he was a member of the Burakoff class, and
because the two cases raised substantially the same claims and
identical class certification issues. Williams agreed to the
dismissal of his claim for unpaid business expenses only.
The trial court initially denied U.S. Bancorp's motion to compel
arbitration and dismiss the remaining class claim, concluding that
Burakoff's Subclass A and the putative class in this case were not
identical. They were comprised of different class members during
different time periods, so collateral estoppel did not apply, the
trial court ruled.
U.S. Bancorp appealed, and a different panel of this division
affirmed the trial court's order. (Williams v. U.S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. (June 27, 2016, A141199) [nonpub. opn.] (Williams
I).) We noted that no record had yet been developed in connection
with a motion for class certification, and concluded that U.S.
Bancorp had not met its burden to show that the job duties of
members of the Burakoff class were identical to those of the
current putative class, covering a later period, or that any
differences between the Burakoff class and the proposed class were
immaterial.
The Present Dispute
On remand, U.S. Bancorp renewed its motion to compel arbitration of
Williams's individual claims after conducting discovery relevant to
class certification. The trial court granted the motion on October
25, 2018, concluding that a class decertification order may have
collateral estoppel effect, and that the decertification order in
Burakoff barred Williams's claims because facts developed in
discovery showed brokers' job duties and time spent performing
those duties were materially the same during both class periods. On
November 21, 2018, the trial court dismissed Williams's class
claims with prejudice, and then added that it was making no "order
regarding the class claims of absent putative class members."
A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' June 8, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybaeonom Leagle.com
Capstone Law APC, Ryan H. Wu, Esq.--Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com and
John E. Stobart, Esq.--Stobart@CapstoneLawyers.com, Counsel for
Appellant.
K&L Gates LLP, Paul W. Sweeney, Jr.,
Esq.--paul.sweeney@klgates.com, Christina N. Goodrich,
Esq.--christina.goodrich@klgates.com, Kate G. Hummel,
Esq.--kate.hummel@klgates.com, and Zach T. Timm,
Esq.--Zach.Timm@klgates.com, Counsel for Respondents.
U.S. OIL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of United States Oil Fund, LP
(NYSEArca: USO) between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 18, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for USO investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the USO class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1865.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.
The complaint 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. However,
unbeknownst to investors, extraordinary market conditions in early
2020 made USO's purported investment objective and strategy
unfeasible. 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. 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 18,
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-1865.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
[GN]
UNITED STATES OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Aug. 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of United States Oil Fund, LP.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
USO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/united-states-oil-fund-lp-loss-submission-form?prid=8432&wire=1
United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSE:USO)
The Lawsuit is on behalf of shareholders of United States Oil Fund,
LP, who purchased shares between March 19, 2020 and April 28, 2020
and/or pursuant or otherwise traceable to the Fund's March 19, 2020
registration statement.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 18, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/united-states-oil-fund-lp-loss-submission-form?prid=8432&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) unbeknownst to investors,
extraordinary market conditions in early 2020 made USO's purported
investment objective and strategy unfeasible; (2) as excess oil
supply increased and oil prices plummeted, the facilities available
for storage in Cushing approached capacity, causing a "super
contango" in which the futures prices for oil substantially
exceeded the spot price; (3) instead of revealing the known impacts
and risks to the Fund, USO held an offering of billions of dollars
of USO shares in March 2020; and (4) as a result USO suffered
billions of dollars in losses and was forced to abandon its
investment strategy.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]
UNITED STATES: Class of Immigration Detainees Certified in Gayle
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued
an Omnibus Order granting in part and denying in part Petitioners'
Expedited Motion for Class Certification in the captioned PATRICK
GAYLE, et al., Petitioners v. MICHAEL W. MEADE, et al.,
Respondents, Case No. 20-21553-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.).
Michael W. Meade is the Director of the Miami Field Office of the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The Petitioners are immigration detainees being held at three
detention centers in South Florida. Petitioners assert that
Respondents failure to protect them from infection with the
coronavirus disease (COVID-19) while detained violates their
constitutional rights. Petitioners also assert that they are at
imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 because their detention
renders them unable to comply with the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines.
The Petitioners request, inter alia, emergency injunctive relief in
the form of release from government custody, protective health
measures that help prevent transmission of COVID-19, and to enjoin
the transfer of the detainees to any other detention facility. In
addition, the Petitioners are filing on behalf of a putative class
of approximately 1,400 individuals in civil immigration detention
at three Florida detention centers pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).
On April 14, 2020, the Court referred the Motion for
TRO/Preliminary Injunction to Magistrate Judge. On April 17, 2020,
the Magistrate Judge held a hearing and subsequently issued a
69-page report and recommendation ("R&R") on the TRO concluding
that the remedy of release is unavailable to the Detainees.
According to the Omnibus Order, the Amended R&R on the Petitioners'
Motion for Class Certification is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as the Order
of the Court. The Court certifies the following class:
All current civil immigration detainees who are now held by
ICE at Krome, BTC, and Glades when this action was filed,
since this action was filed, or in the future.
The Petitioners' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
and Motion for Preliminary Injunction for Proposed Class and
Incorporated is GRANTED as a preliminary injunction with certain
guidelines.
The Preliminary Injunction is in effect until a full trial in the
matter and/or further order of the Court. The Petitioners' Motion
to Compel Compliance with the Court's April 30, 2020 Temporary
Restraining Order is GRANTED with certain guidelines.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction over all class members, who are
transferred to other facilities regardless of where those
facilities are located. ICE shall not engage in the practice of
cohorting unless ICE confirms through testing or other means that a
prospective cohort candidate is a confirmed COVID-19 case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 8, 2020 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybczvldm from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action From Lieff Cabraser and EJS
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Equal Justice Society
(collectively, "Plaintiffs' co-counsel") filed a class action
lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco, California, challenging
the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Treasury
(collectively "Treasury")'s decision to withhold CARES Act economic
assistance payments from incarcerated people nationwide. The lead
plaintiffs are Colin Scholl, currently incarcerated in Salinas
Valley State Prison in Monterey, California, and Lisa Strawn, a
woman paroled from San Quentin on July 14, 2020. Plaintiffs and the
proposed class seek a determination that Defendants' conduct is
illegal and an Order that they make the required payments
immediately.
Background: Congress passed the CARES Act to provide sorely needed
economic assistance during the economic crisis triggered by the
COVID-19 pandemic. Under the Act, Congress allocated aid of up to
$1,200 (plus $500 per qualifying child) to all American citizens
and legal permanent residents below a certain income level who were
not claimed as dependents. Incarcerated persons, and their families
on the outside, are among the most economically disadvantaged
people in the country. Indeed, according to one study, people who
are incarcerated had a median income of only $19,185 before their
incarceration, compared to $41,250 for non-incarcerated people.
Low-income families are disproportionately more likely to have a
relative behind bars.
The Treasury, however, has refused to issue stimulus payments
authorized by Congress to eligible incarcerated persons, thereby
further exacerbating the economic disadvantages they and their
families suffer.
"The Treasury Department's unlawful withholding of these allocated
funds undermines the health and safety of incarcerated people and
the families they support," said Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, an attorney representing the plaintiffs
in the case. "At a time when COVID-19 is tearing through prisons,
it is unforgivably heartless to steal COVID economic aid from those
most in need."
The populations that COVID-19 has decimated-low-income children of
color, Black people, Latinx people and other people of color-are
also disproportionately impacted by over-incarceration," said Mona
Tawatao of the Equal Justice Society, an attorney for the
plaintiffs. "The Treasury Department's theft of CARES Act
supplements is both illegal and cruel as it subverts Congress' plan
to provide fast and direct economic assistance to families who need
help the most."
The lawsuit alleges that over 1.4 million incarcerated people have
been affected by Defendants' actions. Many rely on financial
assistance from their friends or families on the outside, people
who are already suffering in the current economic crisis. Hundreds
of thousands of others will be re-entering society soon, and need
help to get back on their feet at a time when the job market has
collapsed. Incarcerated people also need to spend their own
money-or that of friends and family who are already hard-pressed to
make ends meet-to stay in touch with loved ones through expensive
telephone and mail services, critical lifelines to support their
rehabilitation. Further, many incarcerated people have outstanding
child support and restitution obligations, and stimulus payments
can be used to support children in need as well as crime victims.
The plaintiffs are Colin Scholl and Lisa Strawn. The Lieff Cabraser
legal team representing them and the proposed class are Kelly M.
Dermody, Yaman Salahi, and Jalle H. Dafa, joined by Eva Jefferson
Paterson, Mona Tawatao, Lisa Holder, and Christina Alvernaz of the
Equal Justice Society.
The defendants are the Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the
United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue Charles Rettig, the
U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service,
and the United States of America.
More about Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP:
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a 100-plus attorney
AV-rated law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco,
New York, Nashville, and Munich. Described by The American Lawyer
as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser
has litigated some of the most important civil cases in the United
States and assisted clients in recovering over $124 billion in
verdicts and settlements. In March of 2020, Benchmark Litigation
named Lieff Cabraser its "California Plaintiff Firm of the Year."
Lieff Cabraser is committed to access to justice for all.
The Equal Justice Society is transforming the nation's
consciousness on race through law, social science, and the arts.
Led by President Eva Paterson, its legal strategy aims to broaden
conceptions of present-day discrimination to include unconscious
and structural bias by using social science, structural analysis,
and real-life experience. Currently, EJS targets its advocacy
efforts on school discipline, special education, and the
school-to-prison pipeline, race-conscious remedies, and inequities
in the criminal justice system. [GN]
UNIV. OF THE INCARNATE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hedges Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF THE INCARNATE WORD,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05949 (S.D.N.Y., July 30, 2020) is a
civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people -- a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA").
Because Defendant's website, https://www.uiw.edu/, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired prospective students, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired prospective students.
Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits
it affords nondisabled individuals—thereby increasing the sense
of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was
meant to redress by failing to make its Website available in a
manner compatible with computer screen reader programs.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention ("CDC"), Americans living with disabilities
are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19 and, therefore,
are recommended to shelter in place throughout the duration of the
pandemic. This underscores the importance of access to online
retailers, such as Defendant, for this especially vulnerable
population.
University of the Incarnate Word operates the UIW online university
as well as the UIW website and advertises, markets, and/or operates
in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
USDA: Agriculture Secretary Sued over SNAP Emergency Allotments
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA GILLIAM; and KAYLA McCROBIE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; and GEORGE ERVIN PERDUE III, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-03504 (E.D. Pa., July 16,
2020) is an action on behalf of themselves and a class of residents
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania substantially and irreparably
harmed by United States Department of Agriculture's guidance and
policy that unlawfully narrows eligibility for emergency allotments
under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP")
provided by Congress as a result of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV- 2,
hereinafter referred to as "COVID-19") pandemic.
According to the complaint, the Families First Coronavirus Response
Act ("FFCRA") requires the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
emergency allotments for all households receiving SNAP benefits to
address "temporary food needs" caused by the extraordinary
circumstances of the pandemic and attendant economic and public
health crisis. Despite this, USDA issued guidance interpreting
"emergency allotments" as "similar to supplements authorized during
disasters under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008" that are
unavailable to households receiving maximum monthly benefits and
preventing state SNAP administrators, including the Pennsylvania
Department of Human Services ("PA DHS"), from providing these
emergency allotments of SNAP benefits to the neediest households,
whose net incomes are lowest, and who therefore normally receive
the most in SNAP benefits.
The lawsuit contends that USDA's guidance, however, is unlawful
because it is both arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
Despite the clear language of FFCRA directing the Secretary to
provide "emergency allotments" to households receiving SNAP during
the COVID-19 pandemic, under USDA's guidance a household of one
person with an entire food budget of $2.08 per meal each month
receives no additional funds at all during the pandemic, while a
household of one person with considerably higher income that
qualifies for the minimum SNAP benefit of $16 per month receives an
emergency allotment of $178 per month to meet his or her temporary
food needs.
USDA's interpretation of the FFCRA is contrary to clear
Congressional intent and the structure of SNAP, and is arbitrary
and capricious in violation of the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").
The United States Department of Agriculture, also known as the
Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department
responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to
farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Lavelle, Jr., Esq.
Kenneth M. Kulak, Esq.
Timothy J. Geverd, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5000
Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
E-mail: John.Lavelle@morganlewis.com
Kenneth.Kulak@morganlewis.com
Timothy.Geverd@morganlewis.com
- and -
Jonelle Saunders, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
E-mail: Jonelle.Saunders@morganlewis.com
- and -
Louise Hayes, Esq.
Amy Hirsch, Esq.
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF
PHILADELPHIA
1410 W. Erie Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19140
Telephone: (215) 227-2400
Facsimile: (215) 227-2435
E-mail: LHayes@clsphila.org
AHirsch@clsphila.org
- and -
Elizabeth Soltan, Esq.
COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES OF
PHILADELPHIA
1424 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 981-3700
Facsimile: (267) 765-6481
E-mail: ESoltan@clsphila.org
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Kaskela Law Files Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on July 29 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against Velocity Financial, Inc.
("Velocity") (NYSE: VEL) on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired shares of Velocity common stock in connection with or
following the company's January 2020 initial public offering
("IPO") of stock.
On or around January 16, 2020, Velocity commenced its IPO of common
stock, selling over 8.3 million shares of stock to investors at
$13.00 per share, for gross proceeds of approximately $108 million.
As alleged in the complaint, the offering materials filed with the
SEC in connection with the IPO "were negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing their preparation."
Since the time of Velocity's IPO, shares of the company's common
stock have significantly declined in value, and currently trade at
less than $4.00 per share.
Investors who purchased or acquired Velocity's shares in connection
with or following the company's January 2020 IPO may, no later than
September 28, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative in the action.
Velocity stockholders are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715 – 1740, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal
rights and options. Additional information may also be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/velocity-financial-inc/.
Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-velocity-financial-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html)
on July 29 disclosed that it filed a class action seeking to
represent purchasers of Velocity Financial, Inc. f/k/a Velocity
Financial, LLC (NYSE:VEL) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Registration Statement and Prospectus (the "Offering
Materials") issued in connection with Velocity's January 2020
initial public offering ("IPO"). This action was filed in the
Central District of California and is captioned Berg v. Velocity
Financial, Inc., No. 20-cv-06780.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Velocity common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Offering Materials to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Velocity Financial class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Velocity Financial class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Velocity Financial
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the Velocity Financial class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Velocity Financial class
action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
July 29, 2020. If you wish to discuss the Velocity Financial class
action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E.
Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via
e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-velocity-financial-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Velocity Financial class action lawsuit charges Velocity,
certain of its officers and directors, its equity sponsor and
controlling shareholder, and the underwriters of the IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Velocity is a real estate
finance company that originates and manages loans issued to
borrowers nationwide to finance the purchase of small residential
rental and commercial real estate investment properties.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that, at
the time of the IPO, the Company's non-performing loans had
dramatically increased in size from the figures provided in the
Offering Materials, as measured by both the amount of unpaid
principal balance and as a percentage of the Company's overall loan
portfolio. In addition, defendants failed to provide any
information to investors regarding the potential impact of the
novel coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite
the fact that the international spread of the virus had already
been confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Offering Materials regarding the
quality of the Company's loan portfolio and underwriting practices
materially misleading.
On April 8, 2020, Velocity announced its financial and operational
results for the 2019 fourth quarter and full year. The Company
stated it had suspended all loan origination operations due to
market volatility and that it was experiencing enhanced
delinquencies in its loan portfolio and had implemented various
strategies to attempt to "‘address this challenge.'" On May 13,
2020, Velocity announced its financial and operational results for
the first quarter of 2020 – the same quarter in which the IPO was
conducted. The Company stated that its net income had decreased 50%
sequentially during the quarter to just $2.6 million.
By May 15, 2020, Velocity stock was trading at just $2.53 per share
- more than 80% below the price investors paid for the stock in the
IPO just four months previously.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Velocity Financial,
Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE:VEL)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/velocity-financial-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8303&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased VEL stocks
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus, as amended, issued in connection with Velocity's
January 2020 initial public offering.
According to the filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that, at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the
"IPO"), the Company's non-performing loans had dramatically
increased in size from the figures provided in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection
with the IPO. Further, defendants failed to provide any information
to investors regarding the potential impact of the novel
coronavirus on Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact
that the international spread of the virus had already been
confirmed at the time of the IPO. The failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
WAL-MART STORE: Evans Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARDE EVANS, Plaintiff(s), v. WAL-MART STORE, INC.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:10-CV-1224 JCM (VCF) (D. Nev.), Judge
James C. Mahan of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada entered its final approval of the parties' class action
settlement. The parties' proposed order was adopted.
The Court ordered the parties to file dismissal paperwork as
appropriate to close the matter within seven days of the entry of
the Order. Failure to do so may lead to sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 22, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/hKqAen from Leagle.com.
WAWA INC: Conditional Class Cert. Sought in Data Security Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action RE: WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION, Case No.
2:19-cv-06019-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff on his own behalf and
on behalf of the class of current and former employees Assistant
General Managers of the Defendant, asks the Court for an order
granting conditional Class Certification and Notice pursuant to
pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Wawa, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores and gas
stations located along the East Coast of the United States,
operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Florida.[CC]
Interim Class Counsel for Employee Track Plaintiffs is:
Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
William H. Platt II, Esq.
HAVILAND HUGHES
201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 609-4661
Facsimile: (215) 392-4400
E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com
platt@havilandhughes.com
WELLS FARGO: Kahn Swick Reminds of Aug. 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending the deadline in Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) securities
class action lawsuit:
Wells Fargo & Company (WFC)
Class Period: 2/2/2018 - 3/10/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wfc-2/
If you purchased shares of the above company 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 link 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
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.
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel No: 1-877-515-1850
E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN]
WELLS FARGO: Vincent Wong Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Wells Fargo &
Company. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Wells Fargo & Company
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/wells-fargo-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8308&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 3, 2020
Class Period: April 5, 2020 - May 5, 2020
Allegations against WFC include 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.
Allegations against NSP include that: (a) the Company had failed to
negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit
plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical
claims from these plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse
trend of large medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the
Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee
benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer
retention; and (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to,
and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
WILLIS TOWERS: Alaska Laborers Class Suit Underway in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action
suit entitled, Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor
F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155.
On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported
former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers
General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.
Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaints assert claims against the former directors
of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against
Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.
On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. John
Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben, in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California
v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166.
Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach
of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Also on March 9, 2018, Regents
filed a motion for consolidation of all pending and subsequently
filed Delaware Court of Chancery actions, and for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff and for the appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel
for the putative class.
On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 2,
2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of Chancery actions
and all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and
Alaska's cross-motion.
On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint
previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska Complaint') as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint.
On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On January 11, 2019, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
March 29, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the motions. The
court heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and, on July
25, 2019, dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.
On August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal
(only with respect to Messrs. Haley and Ubben and ValueAct) from
the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware. On November 22, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the appeal, which was submitted on April 22, 2020 for
decision in lieu of argument.
On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
reversed and remanded the case to the Court of Chancery for further
proceedings consistent with its decision.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Class Certification in Proxy Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the
lead plaintiff in the putative consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation," Master
File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA, has filed a motion for class
certification.
Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, in
connection with which it indicated that it is seeking class-wide
damages of approximately $456 million.
On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
("ValueAct"), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged "control person"
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements.
The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and
misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson
to accept inadequate Merger consideration.
The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount.
On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ("Regents") as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ("Bernstein") as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action "In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation," Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.
On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument,
the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.
On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal.
On May 8, 2019, the parties argued the appeal, and on August 30,
2019, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded
the case to the Eastern District of Virginia for further
proceedings consistent with its decision.
On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit
denied on September 27, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the defendants
filed renewed motions to dismiss in the Eastern District of
Virginia based upon certain arguments that were advanced in their
original motions to dismiss, but undecided by both the district
court and the Fourth Circuit.
On December 18, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the
defendants' renewed motions, and, on December 20, 2019, the court
heard argument on the motions. On January 31, 2020, the court
denied the motions.
On June 12, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, in connection with which it indicated that it is
seeking class-wide damages of approximately $456 million.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.
WILLIS TOWERS: Defends Aon Acquisition Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the
company is a defendant in numerous suits including class actions
related to its acquisition of Aon plc.
On March 9, 2020, the company (WTW) and Aon plc ("Aon") issued an
announcement disclosing that the respective boards of directors of
WTW and Aon had reached agreement on the terms of a recommended
acquisition of WTW by Aon. Under the terms of the agreement each
WTW shareholder will receive 1.08 Aon ordinary shares for each WTW
ordinary share. At the time of the announcement, it was estimated
that upon completion of the combination, existing Aon shareholders
will own approximately 63% and existing WTW shareholders will own
approximately 37% of the combined company on a fully diluted
basis.
On May 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors, captioned Stein v. Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03656
(S.D.N.Y.), referred to as the 'Stein Complaint.'
On May 14, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware against the Company, the members of the
Company's board of directors, and Aon plc, captioned Kent v. Willis
Towers Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00641 (D. Del.), referred to as the 'Kent Complaint.'
On May 19, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and the members
of the Company's board of directors, captioned Carter v. Willis
Towers Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-03865 (S.D.N.Y.), referred to as the 'Carter Complaint.'
On May 28, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors, captioned Tang v. Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00986 (S.D.
Cal.), referred to as the 'Tang Complaint.'
On June 17, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and the members of the
Company's board of directors, captioned Kuznik v. Willis Towers
Watson Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01097 (S.D.
Cal.), referred to as the 'Kuznik Complaint,' and together with the
Stein Complaint, the Kent Complaint, the Carter Complaint, and the
Tang Complaint, referred to as the 'Complaints.'
The Complaints assert claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 'Exchange
Act') for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement; and against certain defendants under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act for alleged "control person" liability with
respect to such allegedly false and misleading statements.
The Stein Complaint, the Carter Complaint, and the Tang Complaint
each seek, among other relief, an order enjoining the proposed
combination with Aon unless and until corrective disclosures are
made.
The Kuznik Complaint and the Kent Complaint each seek, among other
relief, an order enjoining the proposed combination with Aon and an
order directing certain defendants to issue corrective disclosures.
The Stein Complaint and the Carter Complaint also seek damages in
an unspecified amount.
The Company believes the allegations in the Complaints are without
merit.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.
WILLIS TOWERS: Opposition to Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due Aug. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD CARTER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIS TOWERS WATSON
PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY, VICTOR F. GANZI, JOHN J. HALEY, ANNA C.
CATALANO, WENDY E. LANE, BRENDAN R. O'NEILL, JAYMIN B. PATEL, LINDA
D. RABBITT, PAUL THOMAS, and WILHELM ZELLER, Defendants, Case No.
20cv3865 (DLC) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that the
opposition to any motion for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff will
be served and filed by Aug. 14, 2020.
On May 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all public stockholders of Defendant Willis Towers
Watson, alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
As permitted by Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, the counsel in a related case
published the required notice on June 3, 2020. The members of the
purported class therefore have until Aug. 3, 2020 to move the Court
to serve as the Lead Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Judge Cote ordered that the opposition to any motion
for appointment of the Lead Plaintiff will be served and filed by
Aug. 14, 2020. A telephonic conference is scheduled for Aug. 28,
2020 at 10:00 a.m. to consider any motions for appointment of the
Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Counsel and for consolidation.
The dial-in credentials for the telephone conference are as
follows: Dial-in: 888-363-4749, Access code: 4324948. The parties
will use a landline if one is available.
The named Plaintiff will promptly serve a copy of the Order on each
of the Defendants.
The Judge vacated the Order of June 15, 2020 scheduling the initial
pretrial conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 17, 2020 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Iql12n from Leagle.com.
WINS FINANCE: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Wins Finance Holdings, Inc. ("Wins" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: WINS) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and docketed under 20-cv-06656, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Wins securities between October 31, 2018, and
July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Wins securities during the
class period, you have until September 23, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Wins, through its subsidiaries, purports to provide financing
solutions for small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic
of China. The Company purports to offer financial guarantees, as
well as financial leasing, advisory, consultancy, and agency
services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi Province, and Beijing.
In September 2017, Wins engaged Centurion ZD CPA & Co. ("CZD") as
its independent registered public accounting firm after dismissing
its previous accounting firm.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ultimate repayment of the
RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly uncertain; (ii) nonpayment
of the Guohong Loan would have a significant impact on the
Company's financial and operating condition; (iii) weaknesses in
Wins's internal control over its financial reporting persisted
despite the Company's repeated assurances to investors that it was
taking steps to remediate these weaknesses; (iv) the foregoing
issues, among others, made the resignation of Wins's independent
auditor foreseeably likely; and (v) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On October 31, 2019, Wins filed a notification of inability to
timely file Form 20-F on Form NT 20-F with the Securities and
Exchange Commission("SEC") (the "2019 NT 20-F").
The following trading day, the Company's stock price declined from
$11.90 to $11.20, or 5.8%, on unusually high trading volume.
On November 19, 2019, Wins issued a press release announcing its
receipt of a notification letter from the NASDAQ Listing
Qualifications and its intent to submit a plan of compliance.
On May 26, 2020, Wins issued a press release announcing that the
Company received a delisting determination letter from Nasdaq. The
press release stated, in relevant part, "[a]s disclosed previously,
the Company is working assiduously to complete its delinquent
filing with SEC and to regain compliance with the Nasdaq listing
rule as soon as possible."
In reaction to this news, Wins stock closed at $7.81 that day, in
contrast to its previous close of $10.06, a decline of 22.3%, on
unusually high trading volume.
The Company's undisclosed ongoing financial difficulties --
including non -- repayment of the Guohong Loan -- and material
control weaknesses came to a head -- on June 30, 2020, when CZD
resigned as the Company's independent auditor after less than three
years in that role. On July 6, 2020, Wins issued a press release
announcing CZD's resignation.
On this news, Wins's stock price fell $2.06 per share, or 6.1%, to
close at $31.70 per share on July 7, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
WINS FINANCE: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts of Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 29 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of investors that purchased Wins Finance Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WINS) ("Wins" or "Company") securities between October 31,
2018 and July 6, 2020 (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Wins Finance Holdings, Inc.
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Wins Finance Holdings,
Inc., you may, no later than September 23, 2020, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of Wins Finance Holdings, Inc.
Wins, through its subsidiaries, provides financing solutions for
small and medium enterprises in the People's Republic of China. The
Company offers financial guarantees, as well as financial leasing,
advisory, consultancy, and agency services in Jinzhong City, Shanxi
Province and Beijing.
On October 31, 2019, Wins filed a notification of inability to
timely file Form 20-F on Form NT 20-F with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC").
The following trading day, the Company's stock price declined from
$11.90 to $11.20, or 5.8%.
On November 19, 2019, Wins issued a press release announcing its
receipt of a notification letter from the NASDAQ Listing
Qualifications and its intent to submit a plan of compliance,
adding that the filing of the 2019 From 20-F was untimely due to
the uncertainty over recovery of the Guohong Loan but assuring
investors that failure to collect on the loan would "not impact the
Company's ongoing operations."
Then, on May 26, 2020, Wins issued a press release announcing that
the Company received a delisting determination letter from Nasdaq.
The press release stated, in relevant part, "as disclosed
previously, the Company is working assiduously to complete its
delinquent filing with SEC and to regain compliance with the NASDAQ
listing rule as soon as possible."
On this news, Wins' stock price closed at $7.81 per share, down
$2.25 share on May 26, 2020, a decline of 22.3%.
The Company's undisclosed ongoing financial difficulties and
material control weaknesses escalated on June 30, 2020, when
Centurion ZD CPA & Co. ("CZD") resigned as the Company's
independent auditor after less than three years in that role. On
July 6, 2020, Wins issued a press release announcing CZD's
resignation.
On this news, Wins' stock price fell $2.06 per share, or 6.1%, to
close at $31.70 per share on July 7, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
WIRECARD AG: Hagens Berman to File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman, who on May 6, 2019, was appointed Lead Counsel in
the securities class action brought on behalf of investors in
Wirecard American Depository Shares (ADS) before Hon. Fernando M.
Olguin, DelPoggetto v. Wirecard AG et al., 2:19-cv-00986-FMO-SK
(C.D. Cal.), notifies investors in Wirecard ADS purchased in the
United States with tickers WCAGY or WRCDF, that it will be filing
an amended complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, as directed by the court, to
include additional disclosures related to the original and amended
complaints.
The amended complaint will expand the alleged fraudulent period
from 2015 to more recent events in 2020 and name the company's
auditor, Ernst & Young, as an additional defendant. The amendments
will include the recent events, including ex-Wirecard CEO Markus
Braun's reported arrest and the widening criminal probes amid the
disclosed $2.1 billion missing from the company's balance sheet.
Lead counsel may add further parties and amendments.
Hagens Berman urges investors in Wirecard securities traded in the
United States, and persons with knowledge of the alleged fraud or
who could otherwise further assist with the investigation, to
contact the firm now:
WRCDF@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Lead Counsel's & Lead Plaintiff's Pending Wirecard (WCAGY; WRCDF)
Securities Fraud Class Action:
The pending securities fraud case concerns Defendants' deliberate
use of improper accounting designed to inflate sales and profits.
On May 6, 2019, the Court appointed an individual Wirecard investor
Lead Plaintiff for the Class and Hagens Berman as Lead Counsel.
On Feb. 14, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a first amended class action
complaint.
Since this time, revelations about the full extent of the alleged
accounting fraud continued and became worse. Most recently, The
Financial Times reported Munich prosecutors rearrested Braun on
suspicions Wirecard's accounting fraud began in 2015 and potential
damages to banks and investors could amount to the equivalent of
approximately $3.7 billion.
The court has granted Lead Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint on Aug. 14, 2020, which will expand the alleged
fraudulent period to cover recent stock drops caused by the
revelation of Wirecard's financial fraud, including the company's
June disclosures, the recent arrest of former CEO Markus Braun and
the apparent reckless audit failures of Ernst & Young (Germany).
"Wirecard's fraud is enormous and must have been assisted by
others. We are focusing our investigation on who knew what and
when, including their accountants," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.
For more information about the case visit:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/WRCDF
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
www.hbsslaw.com [GN]
XEROX CORP: Renewed Motion to Intervene in Ribbe Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the court in Ribbe v.
Jacobson, et al., has denied the renewed motion to intervene filed
by Miami Firefighters' Relief & Pension Fund.
On April 11, 2019, Carmen Ribbe filed a putative derivative and
class action stockholder complaint in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, naming as defendants Xerox,
current Board members Joseph J. Echevarria, Cheryl Gordon Krongard,
Keith Cozza, Giovanni G. Visentin, Jonathan Christodoro, Nicholas
Graziano, and A. Scott Letier, and former Board members Jeffrey
Jacobson, William Curt Hunter, Robert J. Keegan, Charles Prince,
Ann N. Reese, Stephen H. Rusckowski, Gregory Q. Brown, and Sara
Martinez Tucker.
Plaintiff previously filed a putative shareholder derivative
lawsuit on May 24, 2018 against certain of these defendants, as
well as others, in the same court; that lawsuit was dismissed
without prejudice on December 6, 2018.
The new complaint included putative derivative claims on behalf of
Xerox for breach of fiduciary duty against the then members of the
Xerox Board who approved Xerox's entry into agreements to settle
shareholder actions filed in 2018 in the same court against Xerox,
its then directors, and FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation ("Fujifilm")
in connection with a proposed transaction announced in January 2018
to combine Xerox and Fuji Xerox (the "Fuji Transaction"), including
a consolidated putative class action, In re Xerox Corporation
Consolidated Shareholder Litigation ("XCCSL"), and actions filed by
Darwin Deason, Deason v. Fujifilm Holdings Corp., et al. and Deason
v. Xerox Corporation, et al., against the same defendants as well
as, in the first Deason action, former Xerox Chief Executive
Officer Ursula M. Burns (the "Fuji Transaction Shareholder
Lawsuits").
Plaintiff alleged that the settlements ceded control of the Board
and the Company to Darwin Deason and Carl C. Icahn without a vote
by, or compensation to, other Xerox stockholders; improperly
provided certain benefits and releases to the resigning and
continuing directors; and subjected Xerox to potential breach of
contract damages in an action by Fuji relating to Xerox’s
termination of the proposed Fuji Transaction.
Plaintiff also alleged that the current Board members breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly rejecting plaintiff's January
14, 2019 shareholder demand on the Board to remedy harms arising
from entry into the Deason and XCCSL settlements.
The new complaint further included direct claims for breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of current Xerox
stockholders other than Mr. Deason, Mr. Icahn, and their affiliated
entities (the "Ribbe Class") against the defendants for causing
Xerox to enter into the Deason and XCCSL settlements, which
plaintiff alleged perpetuated control of Xerox by Mr. Icahn and Mr.
Deason and denied the voting franchise of Xerox shareholders.
Among other things, plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified
amount for the alleged fiduciary breaches in favor of Xerox against
defendants jointly and severally; rescission or reformation of the
Deason and XCCSL settlements; restitution of funds paid to the
resigning directors under the Deason settlement; an injunction
against defendants' engaging in the alleged wrongful practices and
equitable relief affording the putative Ribbe Class the ability to
determine the composition of the Board; costs and attorneys' fees;
and other further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Defendants accepted service of the complaint as of May 16, 2019. On
June 4, 2019, the Court entered an order setting a briefing
schedule for defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. On
July 12, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to preclude defendants from
referencing in their motions to dismiss the formation of, or work
by, the committee of the Board established to investigate
plaintiff’s shareholder demand. On July 18, 2019, the Court
denied plaintiff’s motion and adjourned sine die the deadline by
which defendants must file any motions to dismiss the complaint.
On January 6, 2020, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint
("FAC"). The FAC includes many of plaintiff's original allegations
regarding the 2018 shareholder litigation and settlements, as well
as additional allegations, including, among others, that the
members of the Special Committee of the Board that investigated
plaintiff's demand lacked independence and wrongfully refused to
pursue the claims in the demand; allegations that an agreement
announced in November 2019 for, among other things, the sale by
Xerox of its interest in Fuji Xerox to Fujifilm and dismissal of
Fujifilm's breach of contract lawsuit against Xerox (the "FX Sale
Transaction"), was unfavorable to Xerox; and allegations about a
potential acquisition by Xerox of HP similar to those in the Miami
Firefighters derivative action.
In addition to the claims in the April 11, 2019 complaint, the FAC
adds as defendants Carl C. Icahn, Icahn Capital LP, and High River
Limited Partnership (the "Icahn defendants") and asserts claims
against those defendants and the Board similar to those in Miami
Firefighters relating to the Icahn defendants' purchases of HP
stock allegedly with knowledge of material nonpublic information
concerning Xerox's potential acquisition of HP.
In addition to the relief sought in Ribbe's prior complaint, the
FAC seeks relief similar to that sought in Miami Firefighters
relating to the Icahn defendants' alleged purchases of HP stock.
On January 21, 2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action
filed a motion seeking to intervene in Ribbe and to have stayed, or
alternatively, severed and consolidated with the Miami Firefighters
action, any claims first filed in Miami Firefighters and later
asserted by Ribbe. At a conference held on February 25, 2020, the
Court denied the motion to intervene without prejudice. On March 6,
2020, plaintiff in the Miami Firefighters action renewed its
motion. On July 23, 2020, after hearing oral argument, the Court
issued an order denying the motion and setting certain case
deadlines.
Xerox will vigorously defend against this matter. At this time, it
is premature to make any conclusion regarding the probability of
incurring material losses in this litigation. Should developments
cause a change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome,
or result in a final adverse judgment or settlement, there could be
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows
and financial position in the period in which such change in
determination, judgment, or settlement occurs.
Xerox Corporation will vigorously defend against this matter. At
this time, it is premature to make any conclusion regarding the
probability of incurring material losses in this litigation. Should
developments cause a change in our determination as to an
unfavorable outcome, or result in a final adverse judgment or
settlement, there could be a material adverse effect on our results
of operations, cash flows and financial position in the period in
which such change in determination, judgment, or settlement occurs.
Xerox Corporation designs, develops, and sells document management
systems and solutions worldwide. It offers intelligent workplace
services, including managed print services; digitization services;
and digital solutions, such as workflow automation, personalization
and communication software, and content management. Xerox
Corporation was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in Norwalk,
Connecticut.
YALE UNIVERSITY: Student Files Lawsuit Over Tuition Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
WFSB News reports that a Yale University student has filed a class
action lawsuit against the school after it refused to issue a
partial refund of the tuition and fees to students.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court, says the university
refused the refunds to in-person students for the spring 2020
semester despite the school halting live classes on March 10 due to
COVID-19.
It also argues that once Yale stopped providing in-person classes,
the school could no longer deliver the educational services,
facilities, access, and/or opportunities that its in-person
students paid for.
Students were also no longer to live in dorms on campus due to the
pandemic.
The lawsuit states the university should refund the tuition and
fees that would have covered the rest of the semester after March
10.
The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all students who
paid tuition, fees, and/or room and board for in-person programs
for the spring 2020 academic semester at Yale, and whose tuition
and fees have not been refunded.
The student alleges Yale breached its contract with students by not
offering in-person classes in the spring and not refunding part of
the tuition and fees. [GN]
[*] Securities Class-Action Suits Declined in First Half of 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment News reports that new class-action securities lawsuits
not involving mergers and acquisitions totaled 117 in the first
half of the year, down 18% from the second half of 2019, according
to a report by Cornerstone Research.
Despite the decline, the total number of filings is high based on
historical averages, Cornerstone said.
Not surprisingly, the report said, "allegations related to issuers'
responses to Covid-19 began appearing in filings in mid-March."
Suits against issuers of cryptocurrencies and cannabis companies
continued in 2020, it noted. [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 ***