/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200910.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 10, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 182 Headlines 440 CAR SERVICE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Barcia Claims AHO ENTERPRISES: Ortega Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery in Illinois Securities Suit Ends AMERICAN RARE COIN: Faces Sosa ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Generic Drug Price Fixing Pending AMETEK INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on October 5 APELLES LLC: Landry Sues in C.D. California Over FDCPA Violation APMEX INC: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissal of Jackson Suit Affirmed AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissed from Bahamas Indemnification Suit BEACHBODY LLC: Illegally Discloses Customers' Data, Carbone Says BETTER PLANS: Faces Flo-Tech TCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois BNSF RAILWAY: Wrongfully Terminates Black Employees, Boddie Says BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until September 25 BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Faces CARES Act-Related Putative Class Suit CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing CHEWSE INC: Katy Lee Files Class Suit in California Super. Ct. COMMUNITYAMERICA: Holt Suit Seeks to Certify Classes DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages E TRADE: Plaintiffs in Merger Related Suits Agree to Dismissal EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Pre-Trial Discovery in Olenik Suit Ongoing ELECTROLUX HOME: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit over COI Rate Increase Underway EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in NY Granted in Part FEDEX FREIGHT: Valdes Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Florida FISHER & PAYKEL: Faces Tenzer-Fuchs ADA Suit in E.D. New York FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Blackwell Class Suit in California FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Bushansky Putative Class Suit in California FORESCOUT TECH: Sayce & Arbitrage Securities Suits Consolidated FORESCOUT TECH: Smith Drops Class Suit FRANKE KITCHEN: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues in New York Over ADA Violation FTF EQUITY: Faces Ocasio Suit Over Contract and FLSA Violations GATEWAY PLASTICS: Brooks Sues Over Packers' Unpaid Overtime Wages GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Operators' OT Wages, Adams Claims HARBOR FREIGHT: Mitchell Suit Moved From Georgia to California HIBU PLC: Levien Appeals Decision in Stockholder Suit to 3rd Cir. HOMELINK LLC: Abitbol Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit HUNTER WARFIELD: Blair Sues in Florida Alleging FDCPA Violation INDIEGOGO INC: Suris Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA INNERWORKINGS INC: Khan Suit Challenges $177MM Sale to HH Global INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending J CHOO USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims KBR INC: Appellate Proceedings Postponed Sine Die KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Rudsell Settlement Appealed LEIKIN & INGBER: Van Vleck Suit Seek to Certify Class LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Faces Hofmann Breach of Contract Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing MALLINCKRODT PLC: Suit by MSP Recovery Claims, Series II Ongoing MARATHON PETROLEUM: Gray Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California MASONITE INT'L: Antitrust Suits Underway in E.D. Virginia MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss McCurdy Class Action Pending MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit MIELE INCORPORATED: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MOBILE CITY: Uribe Sues Over Time Shaving and Sexual Harassment MUELLER WATER: Says Chapman Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Urena in Gulino Bias Suit NVIDIA CORP: Tobias ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Underway P&G AUDITORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Curry Says P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS: Faces Newton Suit Over Servers' Unpaid Wages PBC LINEAR: Faces Gordon Class Suit in Illinois Circuit Court PBF HOLDING: Settlement in Kendig Suit Wins Final Approval PLAYSITES + SURFACES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Faces Flo-Tech Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ad PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Bid to Compel Class Discovery in Lopez Denied REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Still Pending REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tanaskovic Suit Pending REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Suit RECON MANAGEMENT: Sonnier Suit Seeks Conditional Certification RESIDEO TECH: Tentative Argument on Bid to Dismiss Set for Dec. 1 RING LLC: Wise Product Liability Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ROSLE USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation ROYAL SEA: Court Narrows Class in McCurley et al. Autodial Suit SERCO INC: Bernal Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Faces Cullen Suit Over Unsolicited Photos SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defends Wasa Medical Holdings & Calvo Suits STARBUCKS CORP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Harisis Class Claims STATE FARM: Court Certifies Plan Beneficiaries Class in King Suit SUPER CARE: Affolder Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls TRANS UNION: Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling in Norman Suit to 3rd Cir. TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Gusinsky Trust Balks at Poison Pill Adoption TRUIST FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bickerstaff Pending TU CASA #2: Chumil Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay U.S. NONWOVENS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought UGI CORP: Agreement in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Wins Final OK UNIFIN INC: Beck Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation UNITED BEAUTY: Angeles Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging Violation of ADA UNITED CONTRACTOR: Cuellar Sues Over Inadequate COBRA Notice VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending WAYNE COUNTY, NC: Underpays Employees, Flores FLSA Suit Claims WELLS FARGO: $18MM Settlement Reached in Hernandez Class Suit WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal WELLS FARGO: Defends Putative Class Actions Over PPP Loan WELLS FARGO: Faces Urista Suit Over Unauthorized Loan Forbearance WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Beyer Seeks OK of Class Action Notice WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending WW INTERNATIONAL: Studio + Digital Members Class Suits Ongoing ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Facing 3 PPP Loan-Related Suits ********* 440 CAR SERVICE: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Barcia Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SILVANA BARCIA, JENNIFER CORTES, and MIGUEL ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 440 CAR SERVICE, INC., PATRICIO LEMA, and ALFREDO ENCALADA, Case No. 1:20-cv-04002 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and other workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants have also failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at their workplace, and to keep accurate payroll records, the Plaintiffs allege. Plaintiff Barcia was employed by the Defendants at 12-66 Myrtle Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York, from February 2014 until March 2020. Plaintiffs Cortes and Rojas were employed by the Defendants at 12-66 Myrtle Avenue, in Brooklyn from May 2015 until March 2020. The Plaintiffs' primary duties were a phone operator, secretary, and taxi dispatcher. 440 Car Service, Inc., is a car service provider with a principal executive office located at 12-66 Myrtle Avenue, in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 AHO ENTERPRISES: Ortega Class Certification Bid Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE SALVADOR SANDOVAL ORTEGA, et al., v. AHO ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00404-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jose Salvador Sandoval Ortega, J. Guadalupe Alaniz, Efrain Henriquez, Norberto Rodriguez, Jose Luis Correa Martinez, Melvin Efrain Godoy Ramirez, Eduardo Rodriguez, Rodolfo Vazquez, Daniel Valencia, and Jose Valencia as Class Representatives; 3. appointing Mallison & Martinez as Class Counsel; and 4. directing the parties shall meet and confer and submit a proposed class notice by no later than August 25, 2020. The motion is granted as to Plaintiffs' overtime pay and rest break subclasses and the related derivative claims. It is also granted as to conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. The Overtime Pay Subclass is defined as: "all non-exempt production employees, including body shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers, painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at any time from January 23, 2015 to September 30, 2019, who worked in excess of eight hours in any workday or 40 hours in a week without proper overtime pay." The Rest Period Subclass is defined as: "all non-exempt production employees, including body shop technicians, technician helpers, detailers, painters, and painter helpers, who were employed by Aho Enterprises, Inc. in the State of California at any time from January 23, 2015 to September 30, 2019, who Sworked shifts of at least three and one-half hours in any workday, who had their rest and meal periods combined."[CC] ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal from a ruling in the Flight Attendants class action suit remains pending. In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016. The Company believes the claims in this case are without factual and legal merit. In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various damages and penalties sought by the class members. On February 4, 2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78 million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska Airlines. The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal law and for other employment law and improper class certification reasons. The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and agree with the Company's other bases for appeal. For these reasons, no loss has been accrued. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon. The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle, Washington. ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery in Illinois Securities Suit Ends --------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery in the class action suit entitled, In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation, was set to conclude on September 4, 2020. In re The Allstate Corp. Securities Litigation is a certified class action filed on November 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and two of its officers asserting claims under the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Allstate common stock during the class period and suffered damages as the result of the conduct alleged. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, costs, attorney's fees, and other relief as the court deems appropriate. Plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain senior officers made allegedly material misstatements or omissions concerning claim frequency statistics and the reasons for a claim frequency increase for Allstate brand auto insurance between October 2014 and August 3, 2015. Plaintiffs' further allege that a senior officer engaged in stock option exercises during that time allegedly while in possession of material nonpublic information about Allstate brand auto insurance claim frequency. The Company, its chairman, president and chief executive officer, and its former president are the named defendants. After the court denied their motion to dismiss on February 27, 2018, defendants answered the complaint, denying plaintiffs' allegations that there was any misstatement or omission or other misconduct. On June 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. The court allowed the lead plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add the City of Providence Employee Retirement System as a proposed class representative and on September 12, 2018, the amended complaint was filed. On March 26, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Allstate common stock between October 29, 2014 and August 3, 2015. On April 9, 2019, defendants filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for permission to appeal this ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (f) and the Court of Appeals granted that petition on April 25, 2019. On July 16, 2020, the Court of Appeals vacated the class certification order and remanded the matter for further consideration by the district court. The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois. AMERICAN RARE COIN: Faces Sosa ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Rare Coin & Collectibles, LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. American Rare Coin & Collectibles, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-07036 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Rare Coin & Collectibles is one of the oldest and largest full-time coin and bullion trading companies in the Midwest. The Company is an active buyer of all forms of coins and currency and diamonds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Bid to Drop Generic Drug Price Fixing Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- AmerisourceBergen Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company and other industry participants are seeking dismissal of a consolidated putative class action suit initiated by Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, over alleged price-fixing, market allocation and bid rigging of generic drugs. In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers, and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other drug distributors and industry participants. The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail pharmacies and healthcare providers. The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint. On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. AmerisourceBergen Corporation sources and distributes pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally. AmerisourceBergen Corporation was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. AMETEK INC: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing on October 5 ---------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Larry A. Burns of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California will hold a hearing October 5, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., to consider final approval of the settlements in the groundwater contamination cases styled as: -- Cox, et al. v. Ametek, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00597-GPC-AGS (S.D. Cal.).; and -- Trujillo v. Ametek, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01394 (S.D. Cal.). In Cox, the parties agree that a Settlement Fund of $1,500,000 will be established as the Medical Consultation Fund to pay for medical consultations for Plaintiffs and Class Members, as well as fees and costs consistent with the Settlement Agreement. A separate $2,000,000 Settlement Fund will be established as the Remediation/Mitigation Fund for sampling/mitigation/remediation of the plume, consistent with the Settlement Agreement. In Trujillo, the parties agree that a Settlement Fund of $1,000,000 will be established as the Medical Consultation Fund to pay for medical consultation for Plaintiffs and Class Members, as well as fees and costs consistent with the Settlement Agreement. A separate $500,000 payment will be made to help establish the Remediation/Mitigation Fund for sampling/mitigation/remediation of the plume, consistent with the Settlement Agreement. Ametek Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, the Company has been remediating groundwater contamination for several contaminants, including trichloroethylene ("TCE"), at a formerly owned site in El Cajon, California. Several lawsuits have been filed against the Company alleging damages resulting from the groundwater contamination, including property damages and funds for medical monitoring to detect causally related personal injury, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages. While the Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously if pursued through trial, the parties agreed to terms to globally settle the cases. After extensive negotiations, the Company entered into a global settlement of these lawsuits for an aggregate amount of $6.8 million, for which the Company had previously established reserves sufficient to cover this settlement. The global settlement is subject to court approval in two class action cases. The class representative plaintiffs have filed motions to preliminarily approve the settlements, which the court recently granted. Additional information on the settlements is available at http://www.elcajoncasesettlement.com/Cox/and http://www.elcajoncasesettlement.com/Trujillo/ Ametek Inc. manufactures electronic instruments and electromechanical devices. The Paoli, Pa.-based Company has operations in North America, Europe, Asia, and South America. APELLES LLC: Landry Sues in C.D. California Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apelles, LLC. The case is styled as Donna M. Landry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apelles, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01766 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Apelles, LLC, is a nationwide provider of debt collection services and specialized customer lifecycle management programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS M. WAJDA 871 Coronado Center Dr., Ste. 200 Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: (702) 900-6339 Fax: (866) 286-8433 Email: nick@recoverylawgroup.com APMEX INC: Sosa Sues in S.D. New York Alleging Violation of ADA --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apmex, Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Apmex, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07037 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. APMEX, Inc., based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, is the world's largest online retailer of precious metals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion seeking to dismiss the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., is pending. On June 13, 2017, the Grenfell Tower in London, U.K. caught fire resulting in fatalities, injuries, and damage. A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconinc Inc. (ParentCo) and Klaus Kleinfeld. A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock offering (the "Preferred Offering"). The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice. On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members, the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading statements and omitted to state material information, including by allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks posed by Reynobond PE sales. The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product, including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its official website. The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources identified above were misleading. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and expenses. On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed on November 1, 2019 and all defendants filed a reply brief on November 26, 2019. On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic and the individual defendants filed a letter apprising the Court of a recent decision by the Third Circuit and discussing its relevance to the pending motion to dismiss. Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on July 9, 2020. The motion to dismiss remains pending. Arconic said, "Given the preliminary nature of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, Arconic Corporation cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses in the event of an unfavorable outcome." Arconic Corporation manufactures engineered products and forgings. The Company offers aluminum sheets, plates, and other extruded products for the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation, brazing, and industrial markets. Arconic serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissal of Jackson Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------- Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that an appellate court has affirmed the district court's order dismissing the putative class action suit styled, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS. The company was served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and effectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Avanos securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Avanos securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016. On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. On March 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment in the company's favor. On April 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave to Amend. On April 1, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion. On May 1, 2019, Jackson appealed the dismissal of the action to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 27, 2020, the appellate court affirmed the district court's order dismissing the case. Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this matter." Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients' quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia. AVANOS MEDICAL: Dismissed from Bahamas Indemnification Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appellate court has vacated the judgment against Avanos in the case, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos because Bahamas lacked standing to sue the company. The company had an Indemnification Obligation for the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns. On April 7, 2017, a jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding that Kimberly-Clark was liable for $3.9 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $350.0 million in punitive damages, and that Avanos was liable for $0.3 million in compensatory damages (not including prejudgment interest) and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Subsequently, the court also ruled on the plaintiff's UCL claim and request for injunctive relief. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on the UCL claim but denied the plaintiff's request for restitution. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. On May 25, 2017, the company filed post-trial motions seeking, among other things, to have the award of punitive damages reduced. On April 11, 2018, the court issued an Amended Judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against us and Kimberly-Clark that substantially reduced the punitive damages awards. The judgment against the company is now $0.4 million in compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The judgment against Kimberly-Clark is now $3.9 million in compensatory damages, $2.6 million in pre-judgment interest, and $19.4 million in punitive damages. On April 12, 2018, the company filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 23, 2020, the appellate court vacated the judgment against Avanos and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss Avanos because Bahamas lacked standing to sue the company. The appellate court also ruled that the district court abused its discretion by failing to decertify the class as defined and, therefore, vacated the judgment against Kimberly-Clark and remanded it to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling. Avanos said, "We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the Bahamas matter." Avanos Medical, Inc. operates as a medical technology company that focuses on delivering medical device solutions to improve patients' quality of life worldwide. Avanos Medical, Inc. was incorporated in 2014 and is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia. BEACHBODY LLC: Illegally Discloses Customers' Data, Carbone Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER W. CARBONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEACHBODY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-11608 (D. Mass., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by disclosing its customers' personal viewing information. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated consumers, alleges that the Defendant is engaged in the practices of intentionally disclosing its customers' personal viewing information, including names and addresses, to various third parties. After the Defendant discloses its customers' personal information, the various third-party recipients of this data then append to it a myriad of other categories of personal and demographic data pertaining to those customers, only to then re-sell that personal information, enhanced with the appended demographic information, to other third parties on the open market. As a result of the Defendant's sales, rentals, transmissions, and/or other disclosures of the Plaintiff's and Class members' personal viewing information to third parties, they now receive junk mail from various companies and other organizations that do not offer products or services through the mail, according to the complaint. Beachbody, LLC, is a creator and direct marketer of exercise and workout video products, with its principal place of business located in Santa Monica, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: (860) 955-9455 Facsimile: (860) 920-5242 E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com - and – Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com - and – David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 E-mail: dhall@hedinhall.com - and – Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. 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: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com BETTER PLANS: Faces Flo-Tech TCPA Class Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Plans, Inc. The case is styled as Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and entities v. Better Plans, Inc. doing business as: BetterPlans.net, Case No. 1:20-cv-05083 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Better Plans Inc. is a national agency providing health insurance & financial services for the self-employed, individual & family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Emmanuel Figueroa, Esq. Eric Donald Coleman, Esq. Nathan Charles Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: alejandrof@sulaimanlaw.com ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com BNSF RAILWAY: Wrongfully Terminates Black Employees, Boddie Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KYLE BODDIE, VERNON CHATMAN, ZEDERICK DIXON, ROBERT FARLAND, TERENCE FENNEL, RICKEY HOWARD, DAVID MCDANIEL, KURTIS MORGAN, JOSHUA SANDERS, ANTHONY SMITH, and DERRICK WEBSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-05060 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against its African American employees in the terms and conditions of their employment. African American employees, who have been hired by BNSF after the discrimination charges filed against the Company in the mid-1970s have been subjected to other racially discriminatory practices that have been designed to sabotage their employment after becoming an employee, and in many cases force their separation of employment either through a retaliatory or racially motivated termination. Once employed, the Plaintiffs allege they have been subjected to a system of unequal discipline, which is designed to cause African Americans to be terminated from their employment and/or threatened with termination for perceived or alleged infractions. These same perceived or alleged infractions do not result in significant or serious consequences, if any, for non-African-American employees. As a result of this discrimination, the Plaintiffs say they and Class members have been damaged emotionally and/or financially and/or have been denied substantial employment opportunities and benefits. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant in a variety of positions including conductors and/or engineers in Chicago, Illinois. BNSF Railway Company is a company that operates a national freight transportation company with a rail network, with multiple business locations within Cook County, the State of Illinois, and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward M. Fox, Esq. ED FOX & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 300 W. Adams St., Ste. 330 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 345-8877 E-mail: efox@efoxlaw.com BOK FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Extended Overdraft Fees Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company subsidiary BOKF, NA, continues to defend class action suits related to extended overdraft fee charged by the latter. On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by BOKF, NA is interest and exceeds permitted rates. On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas action and the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which heard argument on October 8, 2019. On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making the same allegations as the Texas action. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The plaintiff has appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable in either the now dismissed Texas action or the New Mexico action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Municipal Securities Suit Ongoing in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's wholly owned subsidiary bank, BOKF, NA, continues to defend a putative class action in Oklahoma initiated by bondholders representing a set of municipal securities. On March 14, 2017, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a second putative class action representing a different set of municipal securities. The bondholders in this action allege two individuals purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60 million of municipal securities for which BOKF, NA also served as indenture trustee. The bondholders allege BOKF, NA failed to disclose that the seller of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained of in the New Jersey action. BOKF, NA properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by counsel that BOKF, NA has valid defenses to the claims of these bondholders. BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: New Jersey Class Action Stayed Until September 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action in New Jersey initiated by two bondholders has been stayed until September 25, 2020. On August 26, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the United States District Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging BOKF, NA participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. The New Jersey Federal District Action has been stayed until September 25, 2020. On September 14, 2016, BOKF, NA was sued in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging BOKF, NA participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. The Tulsa County District Court Action is pending on BOKF, NA's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Petition. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that BOKF, NA, the Plan Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by three former employees of BOKF, NA On March 7, 2020, three former employees sued BOKF, NA, the Plan Committee of the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, and Cavanal Hill Investment Management, Inc., a subsidiary of BOKF, NA, alleging that the Defendants included proprietary investment products as investment options in the BOKF, NA 401k Plan, whose fees were too high and performance too low, for the purpose of earning fees. The action is brought as a putative class action on behalf of all Plan Participants. The action is pending on the defendants' motion to dismiss. BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Faces CARES Act-Related Putative Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that BOKF, NA, a company subsidiary, is a defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by an accounting firm alleging that BOKF, NA failed to pay the agents of borrowers making application through the Bank to the Small Business Administration for Paycheck Protection Program (CARES Act) loans. On May 12, 2020, an accounting firm filed a putative class action in the District Court of Colorado alleging that BOKF, NA failed to pay the agents of borrowers making application through the Bank to the Small Business Administration for Paycheck Protection Program (CARES Act) loans. BOKF, NA implemented a policy to pay, and paid, all agents of PPP borrowers where the principals agreed the principals had agents. BOK Financial said, "Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated." BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. CASELLA WASTE: Vandemortel Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------- Casella Waste Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel. On or about September 17, 2019, Richard Vandemortel and Deb Vandemortel filed a class action complaint against the company on behalf of similarly situated citizens in Ontario County, New York. The lawsuit has been filed in Ontario County (the "New York Litigation"). It alleges that over one thousand (1,000) citizens constitute the putative class in the New York Litigation, and it seeks damages for diminution of property values and infringement of the putative class' rights to live without interference to their daily lives due to odors emanating from the Subtitle D landfill located in Seneca, New York , which is operated by the company pursuant to a long-term Operation, Maintenance and Lease Agreement with Ontario County. The New York Litigation was served on the company on October 14, 2019. Casella said, "We intend to present a vigorous defense." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Casella Waste Systems, Inc. provides integrated and non-hazardous solid waste services throughout the Eastern United States. The Company offers collection, transfer, disposal, and recycling services, generates steam, and manufactures finished products utilizing recyclable materials. The company is based in Rutland, Vermont. CHEWSE INC: Katy Lee Files Class Suit in California Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHEWSE, INC., et al. The case is styled as Katy Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. CHEWSE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE; FOODEE INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; FOODEE MEDIA US INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, Case No. CGC20586280 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Aug. 28, 2020). The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS." Chewse delivers family-style office meals from local restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by David Spivak, Esq.[BN] COMMUNITYAMERICA: Holt Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as LISA HOLT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMMUNITYAMERICA CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00629-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. preliminarily approving the class action Settlement Agreement and Release reached between Plaintiff Lisa Holt and Defendant Community America Credit Union; 2. certifying the classes and appointing class counsel; and 3. approving the proposed notice plan and deadlines for class members to object to, or opt-out of, the proposed Settlement and scheduling a hearing for mid–November 2020 to consider final approval of the Settlement as set forth in the proposed approval timeline: The Proposed Approval Timeline: EVENT TIME FOR COMPLIANCE Deadline for Settlement Within 30 days from entry of the Administrator to E-mail Preliminary Approval Order and Mail Notice Deadline for any motions 15 days after notice is first requesting attorneys' fees sent and expenses, the Settlement Administrator’s costs, or class representative service awards Deadline for Class Member 30 days after notice is sent Objections Deadline for Opt-Outs 30 days after notice is sent Deadline for motion for 45 days after notice is sent final approval Final Approval Hearing Approximately 60 days after notice is sent, but no sooner than November 19, 2020. Counsel anticipates needing no more than hour for the hearing. CommunityAmerica is a credit union headquartered in Lenexa, Kansas, regulated under the authority of the Missouri Division of Credit Unions and the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S. federal government.[CC] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Plaintiff Settlement Classes, are: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 6204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Ashlea Schwarz, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 E-mail: ashlea@paulllp.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JOHNSON FIRM 610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372-1300 E-mail: chris@yourattorney.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Martin F. Schubert, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com martys@bsjfirm.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIEL PLLC 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com sgold@kalielplllc.com DIGNITY HEALTH: Darling Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOMERY DARLING and ANA JARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIGNITY HEALTH, DIGNITY COMMUNITY CARE, and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 3:20-cv-06043 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), asserts claims for violations of the California Labor Code and Nevada Law, including failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other medical workers overtime and minimum wages. According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to provide meal and rest periods, to provide accurate wage statements, and to timely pay all wages due and owing. Plaintiff Darling was employed by Dignity Health as a nursing employee in Sacramento, California, from May 2012 to December 2016. Plaintiff Jara was employed by the Defendants as a medical assistant in Las Vegas, Nevada, from November 2015 to December 3, 2019. Dignity Health is a health care organization with a principal place of business at 185 Berry Street, in San Francisco, California. Dignity Community Care is a health care organization located in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com joshh@thiermanbuck.com E TRADE: Plaintiffs in Merger Related Suits Agree to Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- E-TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs in federal actions related to the Company's merger with Morgan Stanley have agreed to dismiss their claims with prejudice. On February 20, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the Merger Agreement) with Morgan Stanley under which Morgan Stanley agreed to acquire the Company in an all-stock transaction. The Company's shareholders approved the merger on July 17, 2020. The acquisition is subject to customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals, and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2020. As of July 6, 2020, 10 complaints had been filed by purported E-TRADE stockholders challenging the Merger. The first, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Shiva Stein individually, was captioned Stein v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03134-LAP. Stein v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The second complaint, a putative class action complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by John Thompson and was captioned Thompson v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-00553-RGA. Thompson v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants Morgan Stanley, Merger Sub, E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The third complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Jacqueline Galeano individually, was captioned Galeano v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 2:20-cv-05123-KM-ESK. Galeano v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The fourth complaint, a putative class action complaint, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Kevin Brown and was captioned Brown v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03322-LAP. Brown v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E*TRADE board of directors. The fifth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Yael Respler individually, was captioned Respler v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 2:20-cv-05229-KM-ESK. Respler v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E*TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The sixth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Stourbridge Investments LLC individually, was captioned Stourbridge Investments LLC v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03457-LAP. Stourbridge Investments LLC v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The seventh complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Chris Ramsubhag individually, was captioned Ramsubhag v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-03891-LAP. Ramsubhag v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The eighth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Abby Katz individually, was captioned Katz v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 2:20-cv-06212-KM-ESK. Katz v. E*TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E-TRADE board of directors. The ninth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Victor Serebruany individually, was captioned Serebruany v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-04344-UA. Serebruany v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E*TRADE board of directors. The tenth complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Rosenfeld Family Foundation individually, was captioned Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al., case number 1:20-cv-05013. Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. E-TRADE Financial Corporation et al. named as defendants E-TRADE and each member of the E*TRADE board of directors. The complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the defendants named therein authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading registration statement. Among other remedies, the complaints sought to enjoin the approval and adoption of the Merger Agreement by a vote of the company's stockholders and/or the closing of the Merger, as well as damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On July 6, 2020, the Company announced that the plaintiffs in the federal actions agreed to dismiss their claims with prejudice. There can be no assurances that additional complaints or demands will not be filed or made with respect to the merger. If additional similar complaints or demands are filed or made, absent new or different allegations that are material, neither E-TRADE nor Morgan Stanley will necessarily announce them. E-TRADE said, "One of the conditions to completion of the Merger is the absence of any applicable law (including any order) being in effect that prohibits completion of the Merger. Accordingly, if a plaintiff is successful in obtaining an order prohibiting completion of the Merger, then such order may prevent the Merger from being completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe." E-TRADE Financial Corporation is a financial services company that provides brokerage and related products and services for traders, investors, stock plan administrators and participants, and registered investment advisors (RIAs). The company is based in Arlington, Virginia. EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Pre-Trial Discovery in Olenik Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that pre-trial discovery is ongoing in the purported class action suit entitled, Olenik v. Lodzinksi et al. On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P. ("EnCap"), Bold, Bold Holdings and Oak Valley Resources, LLC. The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution agreement dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017 (the "Bold Contribution Agreement"), by and among Earthstone, Earthstone Energy Holdings, LLC (EEH), Lynden US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the business combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement (the "Bold Transaction") to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction. The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017, excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims were sufficient for pleading purposes. The parties thereafter have engaged in extensive pre-trial discovery, which is ongoing. Trial is currently scheduled to occur in May 2021. Earthstone and each of the other defendants believe the claims are entirely without merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense. Earthstone said, "The ultimate outcome of this suit is uncertain, and while Earthstone is confident in its position, any potential monetary recovery or loss to Earthstone cannot be estimated at this time." Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. ELECTROLUX HOME: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home Products, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04030 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., manufactures and distributes electrical appliances. The Company offers refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, cookers, air-conditioners, and microwave ovens.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com EQUITABLE HOLDINGS: Suit over COI Rate Increase Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Equitable Holdings, Inc. continues to defend litigation over COI rate increase, it said in a Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of universal life (“UL”) policies subject to Equitable Financial’s COI rate increase. In early 2016, Equitable Financial raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and consolidated with the Brach matter. The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by Equitable Financial in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section 349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys' fees in connection with their statutory claims. Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are also pending against Equitable Financial and have been coordinated with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities. They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as well as additional allegations for violations of various states' consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions are also pending against Equitable Financial in New York state court. Equitable Financial is vigorously defending each of these matters. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Equitable Holdings, Inc. operates as a diversified financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Individual Retirement, Group Retirement, Investment Management and Research, and Protection Solutions. The company was founded in 1859 and is based in New York, New York. AXA Equitable Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of AXA S.A. On January 14, 2020, the company announced its plans to rebrand as "Equitable" and to discontinue the use of the "AXA" brand. In connection with this rebranding, the company removed "AXA" from its legal entity name, which is now Equitable Holdings, Inc. EVOQUA WATER: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in NY Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320 has been granted in part. On or around November 6, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, alleging that the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws. On January 31, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in connection with the action and captioned the action "In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation," Master File No. 1:18-CV-10320. On March 28, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, members of the Company's Board of Directors, senior management, other executives and/or employees, AEA Investors LP and a number of its affiliated entities, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary public offering. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's accounting practices. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proved at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On June 26, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing in connection with the motions to dismiss was completed on October 4, 2019. On March 30, 2020, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act claims and denied the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims. Evoqua said, "The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations." Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. FEDEX FREIGHT: Valdes Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GONZALO VALDES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDEX FREIGHT, INC., an Arkansas Profit Corporation, Case No. Case No. 2020-014726-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 26, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23565-XXXX to the proceeding. The case alleges employment discrimination based on national origin and on color. FedEx Freight, Inc., provides delivery and transportation services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michelle D. Cofino, Esq. Reginald J. Clyne, Esq. QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A. 9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 670-1101 Fax: (305) 670-1161 Email: michelle.confino@qpwblaw.com Reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com FISHER & PAYKEL: Faces Tenzer-Fuchs ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-04031 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., designs and manufactures household appliances. The Company offers refrigerators, dishwashers, clothes washers, dryers, ovens, rangehoods, and electric and gas cooktops.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Blackwell Class Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------- Forescout Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by Ronald Blackwell. In a July 22 ruling, Judge Colm F. Connolly granted Blackwell's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of his Selection of Lead and Delaware Counsel. On February 6, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement") with Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Advent International Corporation ("Advent"). On August 4, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by Ronald Blackwell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the Company and its Board for alleged violations of Section 14(e) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to the Schedule 14D-9. The complaint seeks to (1) enjoin the consummation of the Offer; (2) cause defendants to disseminate revised disclosures; and (3) rescind the transactions contemplated by the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement or recover damages in the event that such transactions were completed. Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment, and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. FORESCOUT TECH: Facing Bushansky Putative Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Forescout Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a named defendant in a purported class action suit initiated by Stephen Bushansky. On February 6, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement") with Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Advent International Corporation ("Advent"). On July 31, 2020, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by Stephen Bushansky, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Company and its Board for alleged violations of Delaware law and Section 14(e) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act related to the entry into the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement and the Schedule 14D-9. The complaint seeks to (1) enjoin the consummation of the tender offer contemplated by the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement (the "Offer"); (2) cause defendants to disseminate revised disclosures; and (3) rescind the transactions contemplated by the Amended and Restated Merger Agreement or recover damages in the event that such transactions were completed. Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment, and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. FORESCOUT TECH: Sayce & Arbitrage Securities Suits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- Forescout Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the class action suits initiated by Christopher L. Sayce and by The Arbitrage Fund, Water Island LevArb Fund, L.P., Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund, Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Comingled Master Fund LP and AltShares Merger Arbitrage ETF, have been consolidated On January 2, 2020, Christopher L. Sayce filed a class action lawsuit ("Sayce action") in the Northern District of California alleging that the Company, Michael DeCesare and Christopher Harms violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired the company's securities between February 7, 2019, and October 9, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2020. The amended complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from February 7, 2019 through May 15, 2020. On July 6, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10, 2020, a putative stockholder class action complaint ("The Arbitrage Fund action") was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California by The Arbitrage Fund, Water Island LevArb Fund, L.P., Water Island Diversified Event-Driven Fund, Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Comingled Master Fund LP and AltShares Merger Arbitrage ETF, alleging that Forescout, Michael DeCesare and Christopher Harms violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired the company's securities between February 6, 2020, and May 15, 2020, and generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts concerning the company's financial performance and the risk that the acquisition of Forescout by Advent would not close. On June 17, 2020, the Court granted an administrative motion to relate The Arbitrage Fund action and the Sayce action. On July 22, 2020, the Court entered an order consolidating the Sayce and The Arbitrage Fund actions. The Court also vacated its prior order appointing the lead plaintiff and appointing lead counsel and ordered the former lead plaintiff to republish notice under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act by July 31, 2020, and that any member of the putative class seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff must file a lead plaintiff motion within 60 days thereafter. The former lead plaintiff republished notice on July 29, 2020. The Court also denied as moot defendants' pending motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling a motion to dismiss following the conclusion of the new lead plaintiff process. Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment, and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. FORESCOUT TECH: Smith Drops Class Suit -------------------------------------- The case, Smith v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00376-CFC, was closed after Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Forescout Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that on February 6, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Original Merger Agreement") with Ferrari Group Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent"), and Ferrari Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Advent International Corporation ("Advent"). On July 15, 2020, the Company, Parent and Merger Sub entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Amended and Restated Merger Agreement") in order to amend and restate the Original Merger Agreement. Between March 13, 2020 and April 3, 2020, four lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of the Company challenging disclosures made by the company in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement. Of those four lawsuits, three were brought by plaintiffs individually and are captioned Blackwell v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02267 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 13, 2020); Bushansky v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-01867-BLF (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 17, 2020); and Williams v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02784-ALC (S.D.N.Y. filed April 3, 2020). The Complaints named as defendants the Company and the members of its board of directors. The Complaints alleged violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Blackwell and Bushansky complaints contended that the company's preliminary proxy statement omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement. The Williams complaint contended that the company's definitive proxy statement omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement. The allegations in the Complaints included that material information was misstated or omitted regarding the company's financial projections, the analyses performed by its investment banker, and certain details about past services that the company's investment banker provided to Advent and its affiliates. The Blackwell complaint also alleged that the preliminary proxy statement omitted material information regarding the recusal of a member of the Board from meetings of the Board and its Strategic Committee relating to the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement, as well as certain details of confidentiality agreements between ForeScout and ten potential acquirors. In addition, the Bushansky complaint alleged that the preliminary proxy statement omitted material information regarding discussions of the potential continued employment, retention, or other benefits of the company's executive officers and/or directors following the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement. The Complaints sought, among other things, to (1) enjoin the defendants from consummating the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement; (2) cause the defendants to disseminate revised disclosures; and (3) rescind the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement or recover damages in the event that such transactions were completed. The Blackwell action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 8, 2020. The Bushansky action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 1, 2020. The Williams action, which was not served, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 22, 2020. The fourth lawsuit, which was brought as a putative class action, was captioned Smith v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00376-CFC (D. Del. Filed Mar. 17, 2020). The Smith complaint alleged that the company and members of its Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Smith complaint contended that the company's preliminary proxy statement omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the transactions contemplated by the Original Merger Agreement and sought the remedies of injunctive relief, rescission or rescissory damages, and an award of plaintiffs' costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The Smith complaint also sought dissemination of a proxy statement with revised disclosures. The Smith action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 1, 2020. On June 5, 2020, the plaintiff in the Blackwell action filed a motion to be appointed as the lead plaintiff in the Smith action. On June 26, 2020, the same plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to his motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. In a July 22 ruling, Judge Colm F. Connolly granted Blackwell's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of his Selection of Lead and Delaware Counsel. Forescout Technologies, Inc. provides device visibility and control solutions in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and Japan. The company offers its products to various industries, such as government, financial services, healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, services, retail, entertainment, and education through distributors and resellers. Forescout Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. FRANKE KITCHEN: Tenzer-Fuchs Sues in New York Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Franke Kitchen System, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Franke Kitchen System, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-04032 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Franke brings open-concept and multi-functional integrated systems that help bring style, convenience and craft into the kitchen.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com FTF EQUITY: Faces Ocasio Suit Over Contract and FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID OCASIO and JOKAYLVEIA WARD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. FTF EQUITY GROUP CORPORATION, D/B/A WHOLESALE FINANCE CAPITAL, CORP., and MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, individually, Case No. 9:20-cv-81404-RAR (S.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged breach of contract and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Business Loan Advisors. Plaintiff Ocasio started from December 17, 2019, until May 31, 2020, while Plaintiff Ward worked from March 28, 2020, until May 5, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege that they were intentionally misclassified by the Defendants as independent contractors and/or inside salespeople in order to avoid their obligations under the FLSA. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours, the Defendants refused to pay the Plaintiffs overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they worked in excess of 40 in work weeks. Moreover, the Defendants allegedly employed improper pay procedures that denied the Plaintiffs any salary for the entire duration of their employment with the Defendants. For instance, the Defendants would purportedly issue a payment through PayPal, and then cancel the payment at the last minute. The complaint also alleges that the Defendants breached the parties' agreement with the Plaintiffs by not paying them their agreed salary and commissions. FTF Equity Group Corporation, doing business as Wholesale Finance Capital, Corp., offers business loan. Michael Goldstein owns and operates the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin D. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN D. SMITH, P.A. 6099 Stirling Road, Suite 101 Davie, FL 33314 Tel: (954) 797-9626 Fax: (954) 239-3956 Email: kevin@kdsmithlaw.com GATEWAY PLASTICS: Brooks Sues Over Packers' Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAREKA BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATEWAY PLASTICS, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01318-JPS (E.D. Wis., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, the Defendant violates the laws by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated inspector packers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek despite having an actual and accurate record of said employees' pre-shift and post-shift hours worked and/or work performed via its electronic timekeeping system. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector packer at 5650 West County Line Road, in Mequon, Wisconsin, from December 2019 until August 13, 2020. Gateway Plastics, Inc., is a plastic fabrication company located in Mequon, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 North Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Fails to Pay Operators' OT Wages, Adams Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ADAMS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GYRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00219 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages to wireline operators. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a wireline operator from May 2013 to August 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him and other similarly situated wireline operators overtime pay despite being required to work 7-day work weeks. Instead, the Defendant paid them a flat monthly salary plus a day rate for each day spent in the field. The Defendant also allegedly classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated wireline operators as exempt from overtime pay, and the Defendant did not calculate their hourly regular rate of pay for purposes of paying overtime. Additionally, the Defendant has been sued multiple times for violating the FLSA. Gyro Technologies, Inc., is an oilfield services company that focuses on the provision of wireline services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (281) 885-8844 Fax: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com - and – John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (281) 885-8630 Fax: (281) 885-8813 Email: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com HARBOR FREIGHT: Mitchell Suit Moved From Georgia to California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Markeith Mitchell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00236, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 28, 2020. The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07906-GW-JPR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability. Harbor Freight Tools is a privately held discount tool and equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California. Harbor Freight Tools operates a chain of retail stores, as well as a mail-order and e-commerce business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Norris, Esq. Dargan Maner Ware, Esq. 2154 Highland Ave. S Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 541-7759 Fax: (205) 930-9989 Email: jnorris@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com - and - Steven N. Newton, Esq. 401 Westpark Dr., Ste. 200 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Phone: (678) 837-6398 Fax: (770) 716-6270 Email: snnewtonlaw@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam Reinke, Esq. Gilbert O. Oladeinbo, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE, Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30306 Phone: (404) 572-2774 Email: areinke@kslaw.com goladeinbo@kslaw.com - and - Livia M. Kiser, Esq. Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 W 5th St., Ste. 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-4344 Email: lkiser@kslaw.com mshortnacy@kslaw.com HIBU PLC: Levien Appeals Decision in Stockholder Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Thomas Levien and James Westhead filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit entitled THOMAS LEVIEN and JAMES WESTHAND, Individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIBU PLC; HIBU GROUP LIMITED; HIBU (UK) LIMITED; YH LIMITED; HIBU INC.; HIBU (USA) LLC; HIBU HOLDINGS (USA) INC.; HIBU OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., ESTATE OF JOHN MICHAEL POCOCK; ANTONY JEFFREY BATES; ROBERT CHARLES MICHAEL WIGLEY; ELIZABETH GRACE CHAMBERS; JOHN BERNARD COGHLAN; TOBY RUFUS COPPEL; CARLOS ESPINOSA DE LOS MONTEROS; ESTATE OF KATHLEEN FLAHERTY; AND RICHARD HOOPER, Case No. 2-19-cv-03239, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that Levien and Westhead, and all other similarly situated shareholders, were deprived of the opportunity to sell their shares before the company extinguished their rights, and suffered losses when the company shares became worthless. In 2012, Yell Group was renamed hibu plc and was deeply in debt. The officers and Board of Directors conducted a campaign of disinformation and knowing false statements about the company's financial well-being and future prospects that culminated, from the shareholders' perspective, in the delisting of the company's traded shares on or about July 25, 2013, effectively reducing the value of the shareholders' investment to zero. The Yell/hibu shareholders, including the Plaintiffs, and all other similarly situated shareholders, reasonably relied on the fraudulent and deceitful misrepresentation and omission by the company officers and directors and were therefore deprived of the right to make decisions regarding the holding or selling of their stock based on accurate information. The conspiracy culminated when, in secret cooperation with its lenders, the company effectively divested itself of assets so as to qualify for "administration" (the British analogue to Chapter 11 bankruptcy) and extinguished the rights of all of its shareholders, with no compensation. The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Levien, et al. v. Hibu PLC, et al., Case No. 20-2731, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants THOMAS LEVIEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, and JAMES WESTHEAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by: Zachary S. Feinberg, Esq. Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. FREIWALD LAW 1500 Walnut Street, 18th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 875-8000 E-mail: zsf@freiwaldlaw.com ajf@freiwaldlaw.com - and - Clifford E. Haines, Esq. HAINES & ASSOCIATES 1339 Chestnut Street The Widener Building, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 246-2200 E-mail: info@haines-law.com Defendant-Appellee HIBU PLC is represented by: Scott S. Balber, Esq. KELLY & BALBER 516 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 542-7600 E-mail: Scott.Balber@hsf.com - and - Peter Behmke, Esq. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (917) 542-7600 E-mail: Peter.Behmke@hsf.com - and - Paige M. Willan, Esq. KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-2700 E-mail: pwillan@klehr.com HOMELINK LLC: Abitbol Appeals Ruling in TCPA Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff David Abitbol filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit entitled David Abitbol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Homelink, LLC and Sunnova Energy Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03654-RGK-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13, 2020, the lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Sunnova is an energy company that provides, among other things, the sale of solar panels. Sunnova engaged Homelink to tele-market on its behalf to consumers, engaging in automated telemarketing calls. Abitbol claims he heard a clicking sound and there was a pause until an agent joined the call. The appellate case is captioned as David Abitbol v. HomeLink, LLC, et al., Case No. 20-55894, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellant David Abitbol's opening brief is due on October 26, 2020; -- Appellees HomeLink, LLC and Sunnova Energy Corporation's answering brief is due on November 25, 2020; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant DAVID ABITBOL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com Defendants-Appellees HOMELINK, LLC and SUNNOVA ENERGY CORPORATION are represented by: Arjun P. Rao, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5800 E-mail: arao@stroock.com - and - Tania L. Rice, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-6204 E-mail: tania.rice@bakerbotts.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Blair Sues in Florida Alleging FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield, Inc. The case is styled as Frederick Blair, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-02034 (M.D. Fla., Aug. 29, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hunter Warfield provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com INDIEGOGO INC: Suris Sues in E.D. New York Over Violation of ADA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Indiegogo, Inc. The case is styled as Yaroslav Suris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Indiegogo, Inc. doing business as: Indiegogo, Case No. 1:20-cv-04025 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Indiegogo, Inc., develops and publishes a crowdfunding platform. The Company's platform allows users to raise money via published campaigns that can be distributed through email and social channels.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 208 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Fax: (516) 706-6631 Email: msegal@segallegal.com INNERWORKINGS INC: Khan Suit Challenges $177MM Sale to HH Global ---------------------------------------------------------------- WASEEM KHAN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. INNERWORKINGS, INC., JACK M. GREENBERG, CHARLES K. BOBRINSKOY, LINDSAY Y. CORBY, DAVID FISHER, ADAM GUTSTEIN, JULIE M. HOWARD, KIRT P. KARROS, RICH STODDART, and MARC ZENNER, Case No. 653867/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), is brought against InnerWorkings and its Board of Directors for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of their efforts to sell the Company to HH Global Group Limited, HH Global Finance Limited, and Project Idaho Merger Sub, Inc. The Plaintiff alleges that the proposed sale is a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and he seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction, which is valued at approximately $177 million. The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in a July 15, 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan of merger. Under the terms of the merger agreement, InnerWorkings will be the surviving corporation in the Merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of HH Global. InnerWorkings public stockholders will receive, in an all-cash transaction, pursuant to which each share of InnerWorkings common stock will be exchanged for $3 per share. On August 10, 2020, InnerWorkings filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule PREM14A with the SEC in support of the proposed transaction. The Plaintiff contends that the proposed transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, the Plaintiff asserts, the Preliminary Proxy describes an insufficient process in which the Board rushed through an inadequate "sales process" in which the only end goal was a sale to HH Global, with no committee of disinterested directors created to run the sales process. In approving the Proposed Transaction, the individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell InnerWorkings without first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the proposed transaction to benefit themselves and/or HH Global without regard for InnerWorkings' public stockholders, the Plaintiff avers. Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction and compel the individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties to InnerWorkings' stockholders. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, InnerWorkings, Inc., provides marketing execution solutions in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Mexico, Central America, and South America. The Company's software applications and databases create an integrated solution that stores, analyzes, and tracks the production capabilities of its supplier network, as well as detailed pricing data.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 741-4977 Facsimile: (561) 741-0626 E-mail: jbrodsky@brodskysmith.com INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Canez Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Intelligent Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the securities class action suit headed by Edgardo Canez, is pending. On or about July 9, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 1:19-cv-03949) by Michael Skrzeczkoski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against the company, and certain current and former directors and officers. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the company's press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings were misleading as a result of the failure to disclose alleged related party transactions affecting revenue recognition and the absence of disclosure regarding certain allegations against former director Parker H. Petit in connection with his former position with MiMedx, Inc. The complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and unspecified damages on behalf of purchasers who acquired our stock during the period from January 23, 2019, through May 29, 2019, and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result of the alleged misleading statements. On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed Edgardo Canez as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") on behalf of the putative class. On November 18, 2019, Lead Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded company securities from May 23, 2014 through May 29, 2019, filed an amended class action complaint against the company, and certain current and former directors and officers (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint alleges similar allegations in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as the previously filed complaint. The Amended Complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs and unspecified damages. On January 2, 2020, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss, and on March 3, 2020, briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed. The motion to dismiss is currently pending. Intelligent said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Intelligent Systems Corporation, incorporated on November 8, 1991, is engaged in the business of providing technology solutions and processing services to the financial technology and services market. The Company's financial transaction solutions and services (FinTech) operations are conducted through its CoreCard Software, Inc. (CoreCard) subsidiary. The company is based in Norcross, Georgia. J CHOO USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J CHOO USA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01632-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., Aug. 14, 2020), arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act due to their inability to maintain a Web site that is accessible to visually-impaired individuals. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. She alleges that when she visited the Company's Web site, https://us.jimmychoo.com/en/home, on numerous times, she encountered multiple barriers, which denied her full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services offered to the public and made available to the public on Defendant's website and its prior iterations. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of intentional discrimination because they failed to construct and maintain a Web site that is accessible to visually-impaired individuals, and failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind and visually-impaired consumers. J Choo USA, Inc., offers the Web site to the public to provide consumers with access to a collection of designer ready to wear women's and men's shoes, accessories, and ready to wear apparel along with a collection of bags. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Bobby Saadian, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ada@wilshirelawfirm.com KBR INC: Appellate Proceedings Postponed Sine Die ------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the hearing on a class action appeal that was scheduled for April 17, 2020, has been postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. (SSI), filed a class action suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) dating back to the early 2000s. Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case. The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25 million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI. The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court of Chad. The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the previous Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was filed and a hearing was held in December 2018. A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019, the Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award. Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019. Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21, 2019 and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020. The plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020 and a hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020 but has been postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. KBR said, "At this time we do not believe a risk of material loss is probable related to this matter. SSI is no longer an existing entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the applicable contract." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services, and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals (E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is basedin Houston, Texas. KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORT: Approval of Rudsell Settlement Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a plaintiff has taken an appeal from the court's decision granting final approval of the settlement in the class action suit initiated by James R. Rudsell. On April 5, 2012, James R. Rudsell, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated instituted a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs generally allege one or more of the following: that the Company 1) failed to pay the California minimum wage; 2) failed to provide proper meal and rest periods; 3) failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment; 4) failed to pay for all hours worked; 5) failed to pay overtime; 6) failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses; and 7) failed to provide accurate wage statements. In April 2019, the parties reached settlement of this matter. In January 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement. The plaintiff appealed the court's decision granting final approval of the settlement. The likelihood that a loss has been incurred is probable and estimable, and the loss has accordingly been accrued as of June 30, 2020. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides truckload transportation and logistics services in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The company operates through six segments: Knight Trucking, Knight Logistics, Swift Truckload, Swift Dedicated, Swift Refrigerated, and Swift Intermodal. The Company was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. LEIKIN & INGBER: Van Vleck Suit Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as VINCE NICOLAS VAN VLECK, individually and in a representative capacity on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LEIKIN, INGBER & WINTERS, P.C., d/b/a INGBER & WINTERS, P.C., Case No. 4:20-cv-11635-SDD-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "(1) all persons with a Michigan address; (2) who after March 23, 2020, and until and including June 19, 2020, were served with a Summons, SCAO Form MC 01; (3) where Leikin, Ingber & Winters, P.C., was the law firm representing the named plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against the person." 2. appointing Vince Nicholas Van Vleck, in a representative capacity on behalf of similarly situated persons, as the class representative; and 3. appointing Curtis C. Warner as class counsel. Leikin & Ingber is a Southfield, Michigan law firm.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. 5 E. Market St., Suite 250 Corning, NY 14830 Telephone: (888) 551-8685 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - B. Thomas Golden, Esq. GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 318 E. Main St., Ste. L, P.O. Box 9 Lowell, MI 49331 Telephone: (616) 897-2900 E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Faces Hofmann Breach of Contract Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Long Island University. The case is styled as James Hofmann, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Long Island University, Case No. 1:20-cv-04027 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Long Island University is a private university with two main campuses, LIU Post and LIU Brooklyn, in the U.S. state of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 599-0320 Email: pkatzman@msbllp.com MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Suit Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other things, include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present. Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws, as well as various state law claims in connection with the distribution and sale of Acthar Gel. In January 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted in part in January 2019. The court dismissed one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with the exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims. The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar Gel. To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the other named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Suit by MSP Recovery Claims, Series II Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. In October 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2018, which was granted in January 2019 with leave to amend. MSP filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019, in which it asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and names additional defendants. The complaint alleged that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network. The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all third-party payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for, provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August 1, 2007 to present. In March 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. MSP filed an amended complaint on July 3, 2020. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Mallinckrodt said, "At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit." Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MARATHON PETROLEUM: Gray Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit titled CLEMENT GRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARATHON PETROLEUM LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC; MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LP; ANDEAVOR LOGISTICS, LP; TESORO REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 20STCV23544, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 27, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07865 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated transport drivers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to provide required meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, and failure to maintain required records. Marathon Petroleum Logistics Services, LLC, is an energy solutions company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon Petroleum Company, LP, is a petroleum refining, marketing, and transportation company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio. Andeavor Logistics, LP, is a company that offers midstream logistics services based in Findlay, Ohio. Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC, is a petroleum refining and marketing company based in Auburn, Washington. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 - and – Hyun B. Lee, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 - and – Michael W. Kopp, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-mail: mkopp@seyfarfh.com MASONITE INT'L: Antitrust Suits Underway in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------------- Putative antitrust class action suits remain pending in Eastern District of Virginia against Masonite International Corporation. Masonite said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2020, that with respect to the putative antitrust class action cases pending in the Eastern District of Virginia, the parties have completed class certification briefing and expert discovery. A hearing on Plaintiffs' motions for class certification was set for August 19, 2020. The Court has reset the presumptive trial date as February 8, 2021. Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets worldwide. Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Dismiss McCurdy Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the defendants in the putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al. No. T19-074, is pending. On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al. No. T19-074 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2, 2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe. On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same causes of action against the same set of defendants as set forth in his original complaint. The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or misleading when made. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. On June 29, 2020, defendants moved to stay this case, which motion is currently pending. Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maxar Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits in Colorado and in Canada alleging violation of the federal securities laws. On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the District Court of Colorado (the "Colorado Action"), naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages. On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class period. On December 6, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the Colorado Action, which motion is currently pending. Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and seeking monetary damages. On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 claim was discontinued. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class period, and claims damages of $700 million. On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending. The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado. MICROCHIP TECH: Discovery Ongoing in Jackson Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microchip Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT. Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its officers were named in two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT. On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily dismissed. The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018 and August 9, 2018. The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects during the putative class period. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 1, 2019, which motion was granted in part and denied in part on March 11, 2020. Defendants filed their answer on April 24, 2020. Discovery is ongoing. Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler, Arizona. MIELE INCORPORATED: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miele, Incorporated. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Miele, Incorporated, Case No. 2:20-cv-04029 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Miele, Incorporated, offers household appliances. The Company provides refrigerators, freezers, ovens, warming drawers, ventilation hoods, coffee systems, and related products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 124-04 Metropolitan Avenue Kew Gardens, NY 11374 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com MOBILE CITY: Uribe Sues Over Time Shaving and Sexual Harassment --------------------------------------------------------------- Yesenia Rojo Uribe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MOBILE CITY NY, LLC, JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-100 PARAS CHHABRA, PREET CHHABRA, WINKY CHHABRA, VICTOR TREJO, EMILY MARTINEZ, and VERONICA ANDUJAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-04023 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law to recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages due to time shaving, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff also alleges that, pursuant to New York State Human Rights Law, she is entitled to recover damages from the Defendants for creating and fostering a hostile work environment through persistent sexual harassment against her. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for a total of 35 to 42 hours per week. The Defendants had several timekeeping and payroll policies that functioned to reduce the paid hours of the Plaintiff in violation of the FLSA and NYLL. From the start of her employment until August 2018, the Defendants deducted a 30 minute meal break from the Plaintiff's time each workday, but the she was required to work through the break three times per week. Hence, the Plaintiff was time-shaved one and a half hours per week due to the Defendants meal break policy. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a retail sales employee at Mobile City. The Defendants own and operate a chain of approximately 34 Sprint authorized cell phone and cellular accessories retail stores in New York and New Jersey, doing business under the trade name "Mobile City."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 MUELLER WATER: Says Chapman Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Mueller Water Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in the case, Chapman v. Mueller Water Products, et al., has not taken an appeal from the court decision dismissing the complaint and the time period to take an appeal has expired. In 2017, the company's warranty analyses identified that certain Technologies radio products produced prior to 2017 and installed in particularly harsh environments had been failing at higher than expected rates. During the quarter ended March 31, 2017, the company conducted additional testing of these products and revised its estimates of warranty expenses. As a result, the company recorded additional warranty expense of $9.8 million in the second quarter of 2017. During the quarter ended June 30, 2018, the company completed a similar analysis and determined, based on this new information, that certain other Technologies products had been failing at higher-than-expected rates as well and that the average cost to repair or replace certain products under warranty was higher than previously estimated. As a result, in the third quarter of 2018, the company recorded additional warranty expense of $14.1 million associated with such products. Related to the above warranty expenses, on April 11, 2019, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against Mueller Water Products, Inc. and certain of its former and current officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that acquired the company's securities between May 9, 2016 and August 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including, among other things, that the company made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects during the proposed Class Period. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019 and second motion to dismiss (in response to the second amended complaint filed on December 24, 2019) on January 31, 2020. On June 11, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the action with prejudice. The time period for appealing the Court's decision has expired. Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed v. Urena in Gulino Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment dated July 29, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and class-wide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of Education, Case No. 20-2857, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Mayra Urena is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NVIDIA CORP: Tobias ERISA Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTINA TOBIAS, ANTHONY BRIGGS, ANN MACDONALD and DAVID CALDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, THE 401(K) BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE OF NVIDIA CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-06081 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against the Plan's fiduciaries for breaching their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative class period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to utilize the lowest cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the Plan, and failed to consider certain collective trusts available during the Class Period as alternatives to the mutual funds in the Plan, despite their lower fees and materially similar investment objectives. Thus, the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA. The Defendants' actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. NVIDIA Corporation is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place of business in Santa Clara, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Germain, Esq. ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP 16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436-2152 Telephone: (818) 788-0877 Facsimile: (818) 788-0885 E-mail: Germain@lalawyer.com - and - Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 233-4101 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: TCPA Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------- Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Ocwen is involved in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) class action that involves claims against trustees of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities trusts (RMBS trusts) based on vicarious liability for Ocwen's alleged non-compliance with the TCPA. The trustees have sought indemnification from Ocwen based on the vicarious liability claims. Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against the company in relation to its TCPA compliance. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount accrued or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on the Company or its operations. Ocwen intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. "If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected," it said. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a financial services holding company, originates and services loans in the United States, the United States Virgin Islands, India, and Philippines. Ocwen Financial Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. P&G AUDITORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Curry Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH CURRY, RICARDO MAZZITELLI, and JACQUELINE BROWN PILGRIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. P&G AUDITORS AND CONSULTANTS, LLC; GRC SOLUTIONS, LLC; PGX, LLC; and APPLE BANCORP, INC. d/b/a APPLE BANK FOR SAVINGS, Case No. 1:20-cv-06985 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and other workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants have also failed to provide accurate wage statements and to provide proper time of hire wage notice, the Plaintiffs state. Plaintiff Curry worked as an anti-money laundering investigator (AML) in New York for the Defendants from October 9, 2017, to August 26, 2018. Plaintiff Mazzitelli worked as a team lead (TL) for the Defendants in New York from July 2017 to February 2018. P&G Auditors and Consultants, LLC, is a provider of internal audit and risk management services for community banks, credit unions, foreign branches and agencies in New York and elsewhere, with its principal place of business located in East Brunswick, New Jersey. GRC Solutions, LLC is a provider of internal audit and risk management services for community banks, credit unions, foreign branches and agencies in New York and elsewhere. PGX, LLC, is a provider of internal audit and risk management services for community banks, credit unions, foreign branches and agencies in New York and elsewhere. Apple Bancorp, Inc., d/b/a Apple Bank for Savings, is a bank holding company headquartered in Manhasset, New York, and operates in the New York metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julia Klein, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP OF NEW YORK PLLC 120 East 79th Street, Suite 1A New York, NY 10021 Telephone: (347) 292-8170 E-mail: jklein@kleinlegalgroup.com P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS: Faces Newton Suit Over Servers' Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMBREL NEWTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. P.D.K.N. HOLDINGS, LLC, P.D.K.N. P-4, LLC, P.D.K.N. P-4, OP., LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-61761-RKA (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to pay federal and state minimum wages and federal overtime wages for certain hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The complaint has been filed to cure and correct the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay policies, which have triggered federal and state wage violations over the course of the past five years. The Defendants' unlawful wage and hour practices have stripped hundreds of front-of-the-house restaurant servers and bartenders of minimum and overtime wages at Bokamper's restaurant located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Defendants have violated the minimum wage requirements under federal and Florida law because they paid all restaurant servers the reduced "tip credit" wage for all hours worked during a shift even though servers are required to spend more than 20% of their shifts performing non-tipped duties and responsibilities, the Plaintiff alleges. She adds that the Defendants also failed to pay her, and similarly situated individuals, the appropriate overtime wages when they worked more than 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as restaurant server from March 2019 until March 20, 2020. P.D.K.N. Holdings, LLC, P.D.K.N. P-4, LLC, and P.D.K.N. P-4, OP., LLC, operate a popular waterfront restaurant and bar in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com PBC LINEAR: Faces Gordon Class Suit in Illinois Circuit Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PBC Linear. The case is styled as Samuel Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PBC Linear, Case No. 2020-L-0000305 (Ill. Cir., Winnebago Cty., Aug. 28, 2020). The case type is stated as "Contract-Money Damages." Pacific Bearing Company, dba PBC Linear and PBC Lineartechnik GmbH, is a manufacturer and distributor of plain bearings, linear guides and custom machined parts. The Plaintiff is represented by Mara Baltabols, Esq.[BN] PBF HOLDING: Settlement in Kendig Suit Wins Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., have won final court approval of their settlement. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald entered a JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CLAIMS on August 24. The Court finds, pursuant to Rules 54(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that the Final Judgment should be entered and that there is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final Judgment as to Plaintiffs and the Class and Defendants. PBF Holding Company LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that on September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance Refining along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and Competition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1, 2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics assets. On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court, California Central District. A mediation hearing between the parties was held on August 23, 2019. From the mediation hearing, the parties have reached a tentative agreement in principle to settle. On March 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed with the court a Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement for the Court's approval of the proposed settlement pursuant to which Torrance Refining would pay $2.9 million to resolve the matter and receive a full release and discharge from any and all claims and make no admission of any wrongdoing or liability. On May 1, 2020 the court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement. The court scheduled a hearing on August 17, 2020 to consider whether to grant approval of the settlement. PBF Holding said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to other international destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PLAYSITES + SURFACES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEONEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. PLAYSITES + SURFACES, INC. a/k/a PLAYSITES PLUS SURFACES, INC., TYW CONTRACTING INC., and WILLIAM CALDERONE, Case No. 2:20-cv-04034 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt laborer and construction worker from April 2015 through August 2019. He alleges that the unpaid wages stems from the Defendants' failure to pay him wages for certain hours worked at his agreed upon rates of pay under the NYLL. He adds that the Defendants also failed to provide accurate wage statements for each pay period under the NYLL, and to furnish a wage notice upon his hire in his primary language under the NYLL. Playsites + Surfaces, Inc., also known as Playsites Plus Surfaces, Inc., and TYW Contracting Inc. are two corporations that operate as a common enterprise. The Companies design and install playgrounds and safety surfaces for their clients across various states in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Barnhorn, Esq. Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway, Suite B Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: dbarnhorn@romerolawny.com promero@romerolawny.com PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS: Faces Flo-Tech Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ad ----------------------------------------------------------------- FLO-TECH MECHANICAL SYSTEMS, INC., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and entities v. PROGRESSIVE BUSINESS FUNDING, INC., d/b/a SHAMROCK BUSINESS CAPITAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-05087 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for sending an unsolicited advertisement to the Plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted (or caused to be transmitted) an unsolicited facsimile advertisement to the Plaintiff's facsimile number on August 13, 2020, to promote business loans. The Plaintiff contends that it did not consent to, request or otherwise solicit the subject facsimile. Accordingly, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff brings this civil action to certify a class of persons and entities, who were sent facsimile advertisements by the Defendant without their prior express invitation or permission. Plaintiff Flo-Tech Mechanical Systems, Inc., is an Addison, Illinois-based corporation. Progressive Business Funding, Inc., doing business as Shamrock Business Capital, is a California-based company that offers a wide variety of loan packages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Volheim, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 568-3056 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com PROGRESSIVE COUNTY: Bid to Compel Class Discovery in Lopez Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RICHARD LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND GLORIA LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APRIL HAGER, Defendants, Case No. SA-19-CV-00380-FB (W.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth S. Chestney of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, denied the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion (1) to Compel and Reconsider Certain Class Discovery, (2) to Stay Ruling on Class Certification, (3) to Amend Scheduling Order, and (4) for Leave of Court. Plaintiff Gloria Lopez filed the putative Rule 23 class action against her auto insurer, Defendant Progressive, and its employee, Defendant April Hager, on behalf of herself and a class of other Progressive insureds. The Plaintiff alleges that that she suffered serious personal injuries in a motor-vehicle accident caused by a tortfeasor insured by GEICO Choice Insurance Co. She received medical treatments for her injuries and accrued medical bills for the services rendered. The bills were paid by Progressive County Mutual under her Medical Payments Coverage. The Plaintiff alleges that Progressive sent standardized letters designated "Sub41" to GEICO with a copy of her counsel asserting a right to reimbursement and a subrogation lien under the insurance policy, demanding payments be made directly to Progressive from any third-party personal injury recovery or settlement proceeds. She settled her personal injury claim with GEICO and its insured and asked Progressive, through Hager, to share the costs of attorney's fees and litigation expenses; Hager declined and reaffirmed Progressive's claim for reimbursement. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants did not have a right to reimbursement or to assert a subrogation lien under the policy because she interprets the governing insurance policy as only providing a right of recovery where medical payments are made directly to the insureds. The majority of payments made by Progressive were made directly to health-care providers. The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint asserts that the Defendants engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the Texas Insurance Code and had knowledge that their Sub41 letters were a fraudulent lien or claim against her personal injury recovery. Her class allegations seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all individuals who had Medical Payments Coverage with their Progressive auto-insurance policy and against whom Defendants asserted rights to reimbursement and a subrogation lien through a Sub41 letter from personal injury recoveries with respect to monies paid to anyone other than the insured individuals for a specified time period. Well before the filing of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, in March 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, asking the Court to interpret the insurance contract as a matter of law and find in their favor on all issues of liability. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Class Certification, which she has since amended. The Certification Motion asks the Court to certify the following class: All individuals who had Medical Payments Coverage with their Auto Insurance policy issued by Progressive County Mutual Insurance Co. in and subject to the laws of Texas, and against whom Defendants asserted the existence of rights to reimbursement, a subrogation lien, or demands for repayment through a Sub41 letter from their personal injury recoveries of money that was paid to anyone other than the insured individuals from April 3, 2015 to the present. After several requests for extensions of time to respond and reply to the Certification Motion, both motions have been fully briefed. The current Motion to Compel filed by the Plaintiff renews her request for the Sub41 letters and Medical Payments Details ledgers and asks for additional relief. Plaintiff believes that she is entitled to an order that Progressive's designated corporate representatives reappear for deposition due to alleged inconsistencies between deposition testimony and a declaration submitted in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Plaintiff also asks the Court for the opportunity to amend the class definition and her class certification motion, to amend the scheduling order, and to continue ruling on the class certification and summary judgment motions until the discovery issues have been resolved. Magistrate Judge Chestney denied the motion. The Plaintiff asks the Court to rule that the corporate representative depositions be reopened and that the Defendant reproduces both Carrie Morris and Keith Benefiel for depositions based on statements in Morris's Declaration attached to the Defendants' response to her motion for class certification. Plaintiff contends that Morris's deposition testimony on Topic 5 (which concerned Progressive's policies and practices regarding the assertion of a subrogation lien) contradict her statements in her declaration regarding those same practices and procedures. The Magistrate Judge disagrees that the statements are unambiguously contradictory, although they are open to different reasonable interpretations. After hearing the arguments of counsel at the hearing and reviewing the briefing and record, she strikes paragraph 5 of Morris' declaration, as the Defendant suggested in compromise. Striking the paragraph such that it will not be considered in ruling on the motion for class certification removes any purported contradiction and obviates the need to reopen any depositions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend the scheduling order to accommodate the reopening of the depositions is also denied, the Court ruled. As to the Plaintiff's renewed request for the Sub41 letters and Medical Payments Ledgers, the Magistrate Judge also denied the request. The Plaintiff has not presented any compelling reason to depart from the Court's previous ruling that the production of the discovery would cause undue burden at this stage of the litigation, before any class has been certified. The Judge declined to continue her ruling on the motion for class certification. If a class is ultimately certified, the Plaintiff may renew her request for the discovery (and, as the Court mentioned in its previous order, if a class is certified, the Defendant is unlikely to oppose it as disproportional and irrelevant). The Magistrate Judge, however, held the motion for partial summary judgment in abeyance. The Defendants' response to the motion raises several concerns regarding the prematurity of the motion. One such concern is that a ruling on liability prior to certification would result in impermissible one-way intervention, whereby members of the claimed class could in some situations await developments in the trial or even final judgment on the merits in order to determine whether participation would be favorable to their interests. The Magistrate Judge will not issue a ruling on the summary judgment motion until the certification question has been decided. Additionally, at the hearing, the parties agreed that April Hager is no longer a necessary party to the lawsuit and will be dismissed with prejudice. However, the parties disagreed on whether costs should be assessed against the Plaintiff based on the delay associated with the voluntary dismissal. The Magistrate Judge provided Hager two weeks to brief the Court on why costs should be awarded, and the Plaintiff will have two weeks to respond. Finally, the only issue raised with respect to the definition in the current motion for class certification is its reference to "Defendants," which suggests that to be a member of the class, both Progressive and Hager had to have asserted the right to reimbursement and subrogation lien. With Hager no longer in the lawsuit, any class definition that is certified will simply be amended to reflect Progressive as the sole Defendant. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Chestny denied the Plaintiff's Opposed Motions. The parties will confer on whether the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment can be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The motion is currently held in abeyance. The parties are also directed to file an agreed order of dismissal of April Hager as a Defendant in the lawsuit. Hager is to brief the Court on why costs should be assessed against the Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y48gxk6q from Leagle.com. REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Moehrl Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the case, Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois), is still pending. This amended putative class action complaint (the "amended Moehrl complaint"), filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl and Sawbill litigation reported in the company's Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named in the prior Moehrl complaint). In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR’s policies and Code of Ethics. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. Plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion to appoint lead counsel in the case, which has yet to be decided by the Court. On August 9, 2019, NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint) each filed separate motions to dismiss this litigation. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss on September 13, 2019, and the defendants filed their replies in support of the motions on October 18, 2019. In October 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest for this matter, in their words "to correct the inaccurate portrayal, by defendant The National Association of Realtors ('NAR'), of a 2008 consent decree between the United States and NAR." Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is stayed pending rulings on the outstanding motions to dismiss this litigation. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALOGY GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Tanaskovic Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the complaint in Tanaskovic v. Realogy Holdings Corp., et. al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey), remains pending. This is a putative class action complaint filed on July 11, 2019 by plaintiff Sasa Tanaskovic against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company about its business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's common stock between February 24, 2017 through May 22, 2019, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust, was appointed lead plaintiff on November 7, 2019. Lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint on March 6, 2020 and the Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 3, 2020. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Sitzer Suit ----------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri). This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation. The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter for the same purpose stated in the Moehrl matter and in July 2020 requested the company provided them with all materials produced for Sitzer. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. RECON MANAGEMENT: Sonnier Suit Seeks Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS SONNIER, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, v. RECON MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00002-JDC-KK (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff Douglas Sonnier moves for conditional certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs. Recon Management is an engineering company providing engineering design and project management services.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN 417 W. University Avenue P.O. Box 4325 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: 337-235-5294 Facsimile: 337-235-1095 E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com RESIDEO TECH: Tentative Argument on Bid to Dismiss Set for Dec. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Resideo Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a tentative argument on the company's motion to dismiss the purported class action suit entitled, In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19cv-02889, is scheduled for December 1, 2020. The Company, the Company's former CEO Michael Nefkens, the Company's former CFO Joseph Ragan, and the Company's former CIO Niccolo de Masi are named defendants in a purported class action securities suit styled In re Resideo Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, 19cv-02889 (the "Securities Litigation"). The Securities Litigation is a class action securities suit with the class defined as all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Resideo during the class period of October 29, 2018 to November 6, 2019. The complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, broadly alleging, among other things, that the defendants (or some of them) made false and misleading statements regarding, among other things, Resideo's business, performance, the efficiency of its supply chain, operational and administrative issues resulting from the spin-off from Honeywell, certain business initiatives, and financial guidance in 2019. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 10, 2020. A tentative argument is scheduled for December 1, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. Resideo Technologies, Inc. is a leading global provider of critical comfort, residential thermal solutions and security solutions primarily in residential environments. The Company was incorporated in Delaware on April 24, 2018, but was separated from Honeywell International Inc. on October 29, 2018, becoming an independent publicly traded company as a result of a pro rata distribution of the company's common stock to shareholders of Honeywell. The company is based in Austin, Texas. RING LLC: Wise Product Liability Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michelle Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ring LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 20-00002-11887-7 SEA, was removed from the Washington Superior Court, King County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Aug. 28, 2020. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01298 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Ring Inc. provides security products. The Company offers alarms, video doorbells, security systems, cameras, and lighting products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrienne McEntee, Esq. Benjamin Drachler, Esq. Beth E Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 350-3528 Email: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com bdrachler@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: David Maas, Esq. Jaime Drozd Allen, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA) 920 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Email: davidmaas@dwt.com jaimeallen@dwt.com ROSLE USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Alleging ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosle USA Corp. The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rosle USA Corp., Case No. 1:20-cv-06525-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield. An initial pretrial conference is set for October 8, 2020, before Judge Schofield. Rosle USA Corp. is a division of German kitchenware manufacturer Rosle GmbH & Co. KG, a company that manufactures kitchen tools, cookware and barbecue grills and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com ROYAL SEA: Court Narrows Class in McCurley et al. Autodial Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MCCURLEY, DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiffs' motion to decertify in part; and 2. denying the defendant's motion to decertify. The following Transfer Subclass remains certified as a class (any other class is decertified): "all persons within the United States who received a telephone call (1) from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular telephone (3) made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between November 2016 and December 2017, (5) where such calls were placed for the purpose of marketing, (6) to non-customers of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the time of the calls, (7) whose cellular telephone number is associated in Prospects, DM's records with either diabeteshealth.info or www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com, and (8) whose call resulted in a Transfer to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc." The Court said, "Although the Defendant filed an opposition, it does not object to the Plaintiffs' request to the extent the Plaintiffs seek decertification of the larger class. Instead, the Defendant simply argues that the subclass should be decertified as well. Since the Defendant does not object to the Plaintiffs' decertification request, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' request for decertification and will allow Plaintiffs to proceed solely on the Transfer Subclass.[CC] SERCO INC: Bernal Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as SERGIO v. BERNAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SERCO, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 30-2020-01150203-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 27, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-07863 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated parking enforcement officers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse for business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay due wages upon separation in violation of California's Private Attorneys General Act. Serco, Inc., is an information technology (IT) service management company, with its principal place of business located in Herndon, Virginia.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Neal A. Fisher Jr., Esq. Chris Petersen, Esq. Marissa M. Franco, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: nealfisher@dwt.com chrispetersen@dwt.com marissafranco@dwt.com SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH: Faces Cullen Suit Over Unsolicited Photos --------------------------------------------------------------- DON CULLEN and ELLEN ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SHUTTERFLY LIFETOUCH, LLC and SHUTTERFLY, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-06040 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for false advertising, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, unlawful trade practices, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in an unlawful practice of taking unsolicited photographs of school children and sending home copies of the photographs with an option to purchase, as part of their Family Approval Program photo packages. Parents are instructed to review the photographs and pay for any photos they choose to keep or return the photos to the school to presumably be destroyed within days. Parents are not provided with an option to request that their child's picture not be taken or to opt-out of receiving the photos. Despite the unsolicited nature of the photographs, the Defendants maintain that any photographs that are not returned must be paid for and send parents reminders for payment. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiffs say they and Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, injury in fact and have lost money and/or property as a result of such false, deceptive and misleading advertising. Shutterfly Lifetouch LLC is a professional photography company headquartered in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Shutterfly, LLC, f/k/a Shutterfly Inc., is a company that operates an online retailer and manufacturer of personalized products and services, headquartered in Redwood City, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie McCrary, Esq. Anthony Patek, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 336-6545 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defends Wasa Medical Holdings & Calvo Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in two putative securities class action suits initiated by Wasa Medical Holdings and Jeannette Calvo. On May 26, 2020, Wasa Medical Holdings filed a putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-00966-AJB-DEB, against the company, its President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Henry Ji, Ph.D., and its SVP of Regulatory Affairs, Mark R. Brunswick, Ph.D. The action alleges that the company, Dr. Ji and Dr. Brunswick made materially false and/or misleading statements to the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements regarding STI-1499 and its ability to inhibit the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit seeks to recover damages caused by the alleged violations of federal securities laws, along with the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the lawsuit, including counsel fees and expert fees. On June 11, 2020, Jeannette Calvo filed a second putative federal securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-01066-JAH-WVG, against the same defendants alleging the same claims and seeking the same relief. It is anticipated that these cases will be consolidated as part of the lead plaintiff and counsel appointment process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Sorrento said, "We intend to defend these matters vigorously." Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in the discovery, acquisition, development and commercialization of drug therapeutics. Its primary focus is to transform cancer into a treatable or chronically manageable disease. It is also developing therapeutic products for other indications, including immunology and infectious diseases. The company is based in San Diego, California. STARBUCKS CORP: Parties Agree to Dismiss Harisis Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division issued an Order dismissing the Class Claims in the case captioned MIHALY HARISIS, on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated employees, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendants. Case No. 2:20-cv-05210 JFW (Ex). (C.D. Cal.), pursuant to the parties' stipulation. The class claims are dismissed without prejudice. This matter is remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of this Action pursuant to the stipulation and this order. A full-text copy of the District Court's August 3, 2020 Order is available at https://bit.ly/2Rdw7x8 from Leagle.com STATE FARM: Court Certifies Plan Beneficiaries Class in King Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as BOB KING, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT PLAN FOR UNITED STATES ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01120-JES-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge James E. Shadid entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all participants and beneficiaries of the State Farm Insurance Companies Health Reimbursement Arrangement Plan for United States Eligible Individuals who presented claims for services, and either received those services in January of 2019 or began a course of treatment in January 2019, which claims were not paid"; 2. appointing Mr. King as the representative of the class; 3. appointing Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as class counsel. Mr. King asserts there are approximately 283 persons who were not reimbursed for services. The Court said the parties have not identified any other litigation by putative class members concerning this controversy, and the Defendants have not identified how the interests of individual class members would be better served through separate actions. The difficulties in managing this class action seem minimal, as the class will likely be 256 individuals or less and those individuals have already been identified. Additionally, the liability portion of this litigation can be separated from those specific questions individual to each class member. Thus, a class action seems superior to other methods in resolving this controversy in a fair and efficient manner, and class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3) is proper. State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[CC] SUPER CARE: Affolder Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW AFFOLDER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUPER CARE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-07776 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of placing artificial/prerecorded and autodialed telemarketing calls to individuals in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, shortly after the Plaintiff's purchase of CPAP machine from the Defendant in January 2019, the Defendant began placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 9523 even without his prior express written consent. Despite the Plaintiff's request to the Defendant to stop calling, the Defendant continued placing calls to his cellular telephone number. The complaint asserts that the Plaintiff has suffered actual injury because of the Defendant's unwanted and untrained telemarketing telephone calls. Super Care, Inc., provides medical equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zack Broslavsky, Esq. BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP 1500 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90266 Tel: 310-575-2550 Email: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com - and – Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. GLAPION LAW FIRM 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Tel: 732-455-9737 Email: jmg@glapionlaw.com TRANS UNION: Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling in Norman Suit to 3rd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Trans Union LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DUANE E. NORMAN, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2-18-cv-05225, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying the case as a class action. Trans Union develops and delivers information and risk management solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring products, risk management solutions, marketing services, and other related solutions. TransUnion provides its products and services throughout the world. The appellate case is captioned as Duane Norman, Sr. v. Trans Union LLC, Case No. 20-8033, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent DUANE E. NORMAN, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. FLITTER MILZ 450 North Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0782 Facsimile: 610 667-0552 E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com jlopez-jacobs@consumerslaw.com amilz@consumerslaw.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. Jordan M. Sartell, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: 215-940-8000 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com Defendant-Petitioner TRANS UNION LLC is represented by: Kristen DeGrande, Esq. Maxwell J. Eichenberger, Esq. Albert E. Hartmann, Esq. Michael C. O'Neil, Esq. REED SMITH 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 E-mail: kdegrande@reedsmith.com meichenberger@reedsmith.com ahartmann@reedsmith.com michael.oneil@reedsmith.com - and - Michael C. Falk, Esq. REED SMITH Three Logan Square, Suite 3100 1717 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 851-8100 E-mail: mfalk@reedsmith.com - and - James C. Martin, Esq. REED SMITH 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-3546 E-mail: jcmartin@reedsmith.com TRIBUNE PUBLISHING: Gusinsky Trust Balks at Poison Pill Adoption ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated holders of TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY (the "Company"), a Delaware corporation v. CAROL CRENSHAW, PHILIP G. FRANKLIN, TERRY JIMENEZ, CHRISTOPHER MINNETIAN, DANA GOLDSMITH NEEDLEMAN, RICHARD A. RECK, TRIBUNE PUBLISHING COMPANY, and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No. 2020-0716- (Del. Ch., Aug. 28, 2020), is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Tribune board of directors for breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with their adoption of an unusually onerous poison pill or shareholder rights plan. Carol Crenshaw has served as a director of the Company since 2016 On July 28, 2020, the Board announced that it had unilaterally adopted a highly aggressive version of a "Poison Pill" shareholder rights plan. The combination of a low 10% trigger and a vague and grossly overbroad definition of "Acting-in-Concert" in the Tribune Poison Pill exceeds any prior notion of permissible exercise of director power. According to the complaint, the Poison Pill is particularly aggressive for two reasons. First, the Pill utilizes a 10% triggering threshold (the "10% Trigger"), which, is a lower threshold than is typical for poison pills and is likely to itself chill proxy contests. Second, the Pill also contains broad and facially unmanageable "aggregation" and "acting in concert" provisions (the "Wolfpack" provisions), which go far beyond the aggregation provisions previously approved in the context of rights plans. In concert with the aggressive 10% Trigger, these Wolfpack provisions are so draconian as to be highly coercive and even effectively preclusive as the provisions severely hobble or shut down the ability of any stockholder or group of stockholders to seek to influence the direction of the Company. These extremely aggressive provisions working together undermine the stockholder franchise, which the law recognizes as the single most important legitimizing factor to the Delaware corporate governance scheme. The Company, in describing the Board's decision to adopt the Pill in a press release dated July 28, 2020, stated: "The adoption of the Pill is intended to . . . protect the interests of the Company and its stockholders by reducing the likelihood that any person or group gains control of Tribune Publishing through acquisitions from other stockholders, open market accumulation or other tactics (especially in current volatile markets) without paying an appropriate control premium." Thus, it appears that the Board did not act in response to any specific threat but instead, at best to an "environment" that the Board felt threatened by, the Plaintiff contends. In that context, utilizing the extremely aggressive 10% Trigger and the Wolfpack provisions in this Pill cannot stand as a "reasonable" response to a non-specific "threat," according to the complaint. By moving to undermine the ability of any dissident to mount an effective proxy contest, the Defendants effectively denuded the corporate franchise and breached their fiduciary duties. A prompt adjudication of this matter is essential to protect and restore the franchise, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff is and has been a common stockholder of the Company. Tribune Publishing Company operates as a diversified media and marketing-solutions company. The Company offers sports, entertainment, business, real estate, and travel news and information in various markets throughout the United States. Tribune Publishing also offers market solutions as a Spanish-language publisher.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 364-3601 - and - Mark Lebovitch Esq. Thomas G. James Jacqueline Y. Ma, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D Bedford Hills, NY 10507 Phone: (888) 529-1108 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 TRUIST FINANCIAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Bickerstaff Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Truist Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company's renewed motion to compel arbitration of the claims of some of the class members, in Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, is pending. This class action case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received. On October 6, 2017, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and defined the class as "Every Georgia citizen who had or has one or more accounts with SunTrust Bank and who, from July 12, 2006, to October 6, 2017 (i) had at least one overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an ATM or debit card transaction (the "Transaction"); (ii) paid any Overdraft Fees as a result of the Transaction; and (iii) did not receive a refund of those Fees" and the granting of a certified class was affirmed on appeal. On April 8, 2020, the Company filed a motion seeking to narrow the scope of this class and on May 29, 2020, it filed a renewed motion to compel arbitration of the claims of some of the class members. Discovery has commenced. The Company believes that the claims are without merit. Truist Financial Corporation is a banking organization headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Truist conducts its business operations primarily through its bank subsidiary, Truist Bank, and other nonbank subsidiaries. TU CASA #2: Chumil Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCELLINO CHUMIL and JOSE CHUMIL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TU CASA #2 RESTAURANT CORP. (D/B/A TU CASA RESTAURANT), WILLIAM ALBA SR., WILLIAM ALBA JR., MARITZA DOE, CARLOS DOE, and RODOLFO DOE, Case No. 1:20-cv-04016 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs were employed as a delivery worker and food preparer, and a delivery worker at the Defendants' restaurant located in Astoria, New York. The Plaintiffs also assert claims for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Tu Casa #2 Restaurant Corp., doing business as Tu Casa Restaurant, is a Latin restaurant company based in Astoria, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com U.S. NONWOVENS: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as Efrain Danilo Mendez a/k/a Efrain D. Mendez-Rivera, Aldraily Alberto Coiscou, Fernando Molina a/k/a Jorge Luis Flores Larios, Siryi Nayrobik Melendez, Rene Alexander Oliva, Juan Flores Larios and Ramiro Cordova, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. U.S. Nonwovens Corp., Samuel Mehdizadeh a/k/a Solomon Mehdizadeh, Shervin Mehdizadeh, and Rody Mehdizadeh, Case No. 12-CV-05583-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. granting preliminary approval of the class and collective action settlement agreement; 2. preliminarily certifying the following settlement class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for purposes of effectuating the settlement: "all non-exempt workers employed by USN in the State of New York at any time from November 14, 2006 to the date of preliminary approval of this Agreement who were not paid a spread-of-hours premium pursuant to 12 NYCRR section 142- 2.4.3."; 3. approving the proposed class action notice to the Class Action Settlement Agreement and distribution thereof to the class members; 4. setting the date for the final fairness hearing; 5. approving the proposed class action settlement procedure; and 6. granting such other, further, or different relief as the Court deems just and proper. U.S. Nonwovens was founded in 1998. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of polishes and sanitation goods.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven John Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. 5 East Main Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 824-0200 E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com UGI CORP: Agreement in Underfilled Propane Cylinders Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the settlement agreement in the class action suit involving direct purchasers of propane cylinders has received final court approval. Between May and October of 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Missouri District Court. As the result of rulings on a series of procedural filings, including petitions filed with the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, both the federal and state law claims of the direct customer plaintiffs and the state law claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs were remanded to the Western Missouri District Court. The decision of the Western Missouri District Court to dismiss the federal antitrust claims of the indirect customer plaintiffs was upheld by the Eighth Circuit. On April 15, 2019, the Western Missouri District Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over the indirect purchasers' state law claims and that the indirect customer plaintiffs have standing to pursue those claims. On August 21, 2019, the District Court partially granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the claims of indirect customer plaintiffs from ten states and the District of Columbia. On October 2, 2019, the Partnership reached an agreement to resolve the claims of the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs; the agreement received final court approval on June 18, 2020. UGI said, "Although we cannot predict the final results of these pending claims and legal actions, we believe, after consultation with counsel, that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material effect on our financial statements." UGI Corporation distributes, stores, transports, and markets energy products and related services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through four segments: AmeriGas Propane, UGI International, Midstream & Marketing, and UGI Utilities. UGI Corporation was founded in 1882 and is based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. UNIFIN INC: Beck Sues in E.D. New York Alleging FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nelly Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin Inc., LVNV Funding LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-04017-WFK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 28, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Unifin, Inc., is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management firm licensed and bonded nationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com UNITED BEAUTY: Angeles Sues in S.D.N.Y. Alleging Violation of ADA ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Beauty Brands, LLC. The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. United Beauty Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-06522-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17, 2020). The lawsuit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan. United Beauty Brands, LLC, provides products and services for the professional salon industry in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Paul Force, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com UNITED CONTRACTOR: Cuellar Sues Over Inadequate COBRA Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ DERLE CUELLAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UNITED CONTRACTOR SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00207-H (N.D. Tex., Aug. 27, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to provide the participants and beneficiaries in the United Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health coverage upon the occurrence of a qualifying event as defined by the statute. The Defendant's COBRA enrollment notice failed to include information on the enrollment process, an address indicating where COBRA payments should be mailed, and the identification of the plan administrator. As a result of the Defendant's omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members were confused and misled and have suffered injuries in the form of lost health insurance and unpaid medical bills, as well as informational injuries. United Contractor Services, LLC, is a national multi-craft specialty contractor with its headquarters in Georgia. The Company also conducts business in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and – Gary M. Klinger, Esq. KOZONIS & KLINGER, LTD. 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Facsimile: (773) 496-8617 E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com - and – Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd., #2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com - and – Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com VENATOR MATERIALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Venator Materials PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated suit entitled, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation, are awaiting the court's decision on a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On February 8, 2019 the company, certain of its executive officers, Huntsman Corporation (Huntsman) and certain banks who acted as underwriters in connection with the company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering were named as defendants in a proposed class action civil suit filed in the District Court for the State of Texas, Dallas County (the "Dallas District Court"), by an alleged purchaser of the company's ordinary shares in connection with its IPO on August 3, 2017 and its secondary offering on November 30, 2017. The plaintiff, Macomb County Employees' Retirement System, alleges that inaccurate and misleading statements were made regarding the impact to he company's operations, and prospects for restoration thereof, resulting from the fire that occurred at he company's Pori, Finland manufacturing facility, among other allegations. Additional complaints making substantially the same allegations were filed in the Dallas District Court by the Firemen's Retirement System of St. Louis on March 4, 2019 and by Oscar Gonzalez on March 13, 2019, with the third case naming two of the company's directors as additional defendants. The cases filed in the Dallas District Court were consolidated into a single action, In re Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation. On May 8, 2019, the company filed a "special appearance" in the Dallas District Court action contesting the court's jurisdiction over the Company and a motion to transfer venue to Montgomery County, Texas and on June 7, 2019 the company and certain defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 9, 2019, a hearing was held on certain of these motions, which were subsequently denied. On January 21, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas reversed the Dallas District Court's order that denied the special appearances of Venator and certain other defendants, and rendered judgment dismissing the claims against Venator and certain other defendants for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals also remanded the case for the Dallas District Court to enter an order transferring the claims against Huntsman to the Montgomery County District Court. On March 19, 2020, plaintiffs from the Dallas District Court case filed suit in New York State Court (New York County) against Venator and the other defendants dismissed from the Dallas District Court case, making substantially the same allegations as were filed in the Dallas District Court. On July 31, 2020, Venator and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the New York State Court case. An additional case was filed on July 31, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, making substantially the same allegations, adding claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and naming all of our directors as additional defendants. A case also was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas by the Cambria County Employees Retirement System on September 13, 2019, making substantially the same allegations as those made by the plaintiff in the case pending in the Southern District of New York. On October 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order transferring the case brought by the city of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where it was consolidated into a single action with the case brought by the Cambria County Employees' Retirement Trust and is now known as In re: Venator Materials PLC Securities Litigation. On January 17, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed a consolidated class action complaint. On February 18, 2020, all defendants joined in a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which plaintiffs have opposed, and for which oral argument was heard on May 14, 2020. A decision on the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint has not been published. The plaintiffs in these cases seek to determine that the proceedings should be certified as class actions and to obtain alleged compensatory damages, costs, rescission and equitable relief. The company may be required to indemnify its executive officers and directors, Huntsman, and the banks who acted as underwriters in the company's IPO and secondary offerings, for losses incurred by them in connection with these matters pursuant to the company's agreements with such parties. Venator said, "Because of the early stage of this litigation, we are unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of loss and we have not accrued for a loss contingency with regard to these matters." Venator Materials PLC manufactures and markets chemical products worldwide. It operates through two segments, Titanium Dioxide and Performance Additives. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered in Stockton-On-Tees, the United Kingdom. WAYNE COUNTY, NC: Underpays Employees, Flores FLSA Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ROY THOMAS FLORES, JUNIOR v. WAYNE COUNTY; and WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00454-BO (E.D.N.C., Aug. 21, 2020), is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay practices, including underpaying employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in 1996 as a patrol officer and currently working as a full-time Detective Lieutenant with Defendant Wayne County Sheriff's Office. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of at least 240 hours each Pay Period. However, when he totaled his hours worked for the week on his timesheet entitled "HRS WRKD", he is required by Defendant to exclude any time worked pre-shift or post-shift and deducting one-hour from each day's work, thereby, making his total worked 168 hours on the timesheet. Even though the Plaintiff's timesheet is fraudulent and does not accurately summarize the total hours he worked, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to attest to the accuracy of his timesheet and systematically calculate the Plaintiff's wages based on the "underreported" number of hours worked. Moreover, despite the internal auditor and USDOL's investigations following the Plaintiff's supervisors' admittance that the Defendants are violating federal labor law, the Defendants continued to short Plaintiff compensation for all hours worked, according to the complaint. Wayne County is a local governmental entity with a principal location of 224 East Walnut Street, in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Wayne County Sheriff's Office is a Wayne County governmental entity responsible for providing policing services throughout Wayne County, North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Charlotte Smith, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Tel: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com WELLS FARGO: $18MM Settlement Reached in Hernandez Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has entered into an agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay $18.5 million to resolve the claims of the certified class in Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et al. Plaintiffs representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers have filed separate putative class actions, Hernandez v. Wells Fargo, et al., Coordes v. Wells Fargo, et al., Ryder v. Wells Fargo, Liguori v. Wells Fargo, and Dore v. Wells Fargo, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the United States District Court for the District of Washington, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively. Plaintiffs allege that Wells Fargo improperly denied mortgage loan modifications or repayment plans to customers in the foreclosure process due to the overstatement of foreclosure attorneys' fees that were included for purposes of determining whether a customer in the foreclosure process qualified for a mortgage loan modification or repayment plan. The district court in the Hernandez case certified a nationwide breach of contract class for foreclosed borrowers and denied certification on claims pertaining to other impacted borrowers. In March 2020, the Company entered into an agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay $18.5 million to resolve the claims of the certified class in the Hernandez case. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: $20.8MM Settlement in ATM Access Fee Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company has reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the ATM Access Fee related suit, subject to final documentation of the settlement agreement. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks, violates antitrust rules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law. Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filed in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a defendant. On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district court for further proceedings. On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to the district court for further proceedings. On March 18, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle pursuant to which the Company will pay $20.8 million to resolve the cases, subject to final documentation of the settlement agreement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Approval of GAP Case Settlement Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that an appeal has been taken from the court order granting final approval of a settlement in the class action related to guaranteed automobile protection (GAP). A putative class of shareholders also filed a securities fraud class action against the Company and its executive officers alleging material misstatements and omissions of collateral protection insurance (CPI)-related information in the Company's public disclosures. In January 2020, the court dismissed this action as to all defendants except the Company and a former executive officer and limited the action to two alleged misstatements. In addition, the Company is subject to a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that customers are entitled to refunds related to the unused portion of guaranteed automobile protection (GAP) waiver or insurance agreements between the customer and dealer and, by assignment, the lender. Allegations related to the CPI and GAP programs are among the subjects of shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in federal and state court in California. The court dismissed the state court action in September 2018, but plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in November 2018. The parties to the state court action have entered into an agreement to resolve the action pursuant to which the Company will pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and undertake certain business and governance practices. The state court granted final approval of the settlement on January 15, 2020, and a notice of appeal has been filed. These and other issues related to the origination, servicing, and collection of consumer automobile loans, including related insurance products, have also subjected the Company to formal or informal inquiries, investigations, or examinations from federal and state government agencies. In December 2018, the Company entered into an agreement with all 50 state Attorneys General and the District of Columbia to resolve an investigation into the Company's retail sales practices, CPI and GAP, and mortgage interest rate lock matters, pursuant to which the Company paid $575 million. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Defends Putative Class Actions Over PPP Loan --------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class action suits related to the Company's offering of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. Plaintiffs have filed putative class actions in various federal courts against the Company. The actions seek damages and injunctive relief related to the Company's offering of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, as well as claims for fees by purported agents who allegedly assisted customers with preparing PPP loan applications submitted to the Company. The Company has also received formal and informal inquiries from federal and state governmental agencies regarding its offering of PPP loans. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WELLS FARGO: Faces Urista Suit Over Unauthorized Loan Forbearance ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Urista, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-01689-H-AHG (S.D. Cal., Aug. 29, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unlawful actions in placing the Plaintiff's loan in forbearance without his consent, and incorrectly reported this to credit reporting agencies. Because of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff contends that he now suffers from negative credit reporting, a lack of the ability to refinance at historically low rates, and a loss of the interest on the payments he has been timely making to Wells Fargo to pay his mortgage, which they have been not crediting to his account due to the unauthorized forbearance. According to the complaint, Wells Fargo unilaterally and without consent, and certainly without requesting or receiving any financial hardship attestation, opted unwitting clients into its COVID-19 mortgage forbearance program. In addition, Wells Fargo put through secondary requests for forbearance on behalf of homeowners, who had asked to participate in the program initially but who did not ask for extensions and no longer wanted to be in the forbearance program. Since the advent of COVID-19, approximately 5.5 million homeowners have participated in a mortgage forbearance program, either knowingly or unknowingly. Wells Fargo has deferred approximately 2.5 million payments and it is not clear whether any of those affected supplied such documents to Wells Fargo. The requirement of a volitional act on the part of mortgagor participants is intentional as mortgage forbearance has serious consequences for homeowners, including an inability to obtain additional credit and/or to refinance any existing loans. As a result, those homeowners, including the Plaintiff, suffered damages, including an inability to access credit, to refinance to lower interest rates (and away from particular mortgage servicers like Wells Fargo--which is especially egregious during a period in time in which mortgage interest refinance rates are at historically low rates), and in dealing with the difficult situation of removing their mortgages from a program they did not want. The Defendants benefit by unilaterally opting unwitting homeowners into its forbearance program in a number of ways, including retaining borrowers who might otherwise refinance their mortgages with other institutions, says the complaint. Plaintiff Jose Urista has a mortgage serviced by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo is a mortgage servicing company operating throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ahren A. Tiller, Esq. BLC LAW CENTER, APC 1230 Columbia St., Ste. 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 894-8831 Facsimile: (866) 444-7026 Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com WELLS FARGO: Shareholder Securities Fraud Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities fraud class action suit brought by its shareholders. Wells Fargo shareholders have brought securities fraud class actions in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of California and the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding its efforts to comply with the February 2018 consent order with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and the April 2018 consent orders with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OCC. Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company, provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. WISCONSIN HOSPITALITY: Beyer Seeks OK of Class Action Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as Ed Beyer, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. Wisconsin Hospitality Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01133-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff seeks to notify the following employees: "all current and former delivery drivers employed at the Defendants' Pizza Hut stores between the date three years prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the Court's Order approving notice who are reimbursed a per-mile reimbursement rate less than the IRS standard business mileage rate for the miles they drive completing deliveries." Wisconsin Hospitality operates as a restaurants. The Company provides prepared foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Nathan B. Spencer, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com nspencer@billerkimble.com - and - Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com WW INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated SDNY Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York remains pending. In March 2019, two substantially identical class action complaints alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company's current officers and the Company's former controlling shareholder, Artal Group S.A. ("Artal"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions were consolidated and lead plaintiffs were appointed in June 2019. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on July 29, 2019, naming as defendants the Company, certain of the Company's current officers and directors, and Artal and certain of its affiliates. A second consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 27, 2019. The operative complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 4, 2018 and February 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to the May 2018 secondary offering of the Company's common stock by certain of its shareholders. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed or recklessly disregarded material adverse facts. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and with respect to the secondary offering, under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to vigorously defend it. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 31, 2019. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW International also gives their members guidance and access to a supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The company is based in New York, New York. WW INTERNATIONAL: Studio + Digital Members Class Suits Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- WW International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend class actions suits filed by individual Studio + Digital members. Two substantially similar class action complaints were filed by individual Studio + Digital members against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in May 2020 (referred to herein as the New York Matter) and the Superior Court of California in Ventura County in June 2020 (referred to herein as the California Matter, and together with the New York Matter, referred to herein as the 2020 Class Actions). The complaints were filed on behalf of all Studio + Digital members nationwide and regard the fees charged for Studio + Digital memberships since the temporary replacement of in-person workshops with virtual workshops in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaints allege that the Company's decision to charge its members the full Studio + Digital membership fee while only providing a virtual experience violated state consumer protection laws in New York and/or California, as applicable, and gave rise to claims for breach of contract, fraud, and other tort causes of action based on the same factual allegations that are the basis for the breach of contract claim. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages plus injunctive relief to enjoin the Company from engaging in similar conduct in the future on behalf of the class members. The Company believes that the 2020 Class Actions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend them. The Company filed a notice to remove the California Matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 30, 2020 and a motion to dismiss the New York Matter on August 3, 2020. WW International, Inc. provides weight control programs. The Company offers subscriptions for commitment plans that give their clients access to meetings and online subscriptions. WW International also gives their members guidance and access to a supportive community to help enable them for healthy habits. The company is based in New York, New York. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Bid to Dismiss Gregory Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that trial on the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation, has not been set. A civil class action lawsuit, Gregory, et. al. v. Zions Bancorporation, brought against the company in the United States District Court for Utah in January 2019. This case was filed on behalf of investors in Rust Rare Coin, Inc., alleging that the company aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme fraud perpetrated by Rust Rare Coin, a Zions Bank customer. The case follows civil actions and the establishment of a receivership for Rust Rare Coin by The Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Utah Division of Securities in November 2018, as well as a separate suit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Rust Rare Coin and its principal, Gaylen Rust. The matter is in the early motion practice state. Zions said, "During the second quarter of 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss which has not yet been ruled upon by the Court. Trial has not been scheduled." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Facing 3 PPP Loan-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation, National Association said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company is a named defendant in three class action suits related to the Government's Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) fees. Two civil class action lawsuits, Fahmia Inc.v. Zions Bancorporation, et. al., brought against the company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in June 2020, and ImpAcct LLC v. JPMorgan Chase, et. al., brought against the company and other banks in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in June 2020. A third class action lawsuit, Manoloff v. Bank of America, et. al., was filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in July 2020. These cases allege that the company wrongly failed to pay agents of borrowers receiving loans from the company under the Government's Paycheck Protection Program fees that were allegedly owed to them under the program. These cases are similar to class action lawsuits filed against other banks and will likely involve complicated procedural issues. Zions Bancorporation, National Association provides various banking and related services primarily in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The company was formerly known as ZB, National Association and changed its name to Zions Bancorporation, National Association in September 2018. Zions Bancorporation, National Association was founded in 1873 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. ********* 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 ***