/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200929.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 195 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Judge Tosses Proposed Class Action AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Keryx" AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Underway ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline AMCOL SYSTEMS: Thompson Alleges Violation under FDCPA AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing AMERICAN RENAL: Approval of Vandevar Settlement Pact Sought AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5MM Settlement Remains Subject to Court OK AMYRIS INC: Flatischler Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Class Suit AMYRIS INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Securities Suit ANAPLAN INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 23 Deadline ANAPTYSBIO INC: Securities Class Suit on Etokimab Reports Underway ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Faces Covid 19 Victims' Class Action APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss Amended Presidio Class Suit Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Defendants Seek to Nix Patel Derivative, Class Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Request to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Seeks to Drop Class Suit of Former MPM Shareholders APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement of IDT IPO Suits Remains Pending ASH SOUNDS: Settles Falls Festival Crush Victims' Class Action AUSTRALIA: Teens, Nun File Class Action Over Climate Change BAOBURG INC: Resto Staff Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Class Status Motion in Florida Suit Pending BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffin, et al. Suit in Alabama Underway BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Health Enrollment Suit vs. Ketayi Underway BLACKROCK INC: Calif. High Court Won't Review Case Dismissal BLACKROCK INC: Still Defends Class Suit over Employee 401(k) Plan BLINK CHARGING: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing BLINK CHARGING: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing BRASKEM SA: Hires U.S. Law Firm for Alagaoas Salt Class Action BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Securities Class Suit in Tennessee BROWN UNIVERSITY: Files Motion to Dismiss Refund Class Action CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing CAINE AND WEINER CO: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of FDCPA CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Suit of Children With Special Needs CAMILLA CARE: Faces $25MM Class Action on Covid 19 Victims CENTRUS ENERGY: Sued Over Radioactive Contaminants, Health Hazards CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Miller Suit Seeks Class Status COLONY CREDIT: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK COSTA DEL MAR: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Sunglasses COTY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Securities Class Action DELAWARE: Walls Files Prisoner Rights Suit v. DOC EALTHEQUITY INC: Appeal in Suit vs. WageWorks Pending EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 13 Bid Deadline EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Dougherty Class Suit in Michigan Continues ESSA BANCORP: Class Suit vs. Unit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks ESSA BANCORP: Unit Faces Potential Class Suit over Kickbacks EXPEDIA: Sued for Refusing Refunds on Canceled Flights EXTENDED STAY: 6 Class Suits Pending in California at June 30 FASTLY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Securities Class Action FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline FASTLY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 26 Deadline FASTLY INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 26 Deadline FASTLY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Portnoy Law Alerts of Class Action Filing FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss or Stay Allred Suit Pending FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dubose Alleges Violation under FCRA FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Court Denies Compelling Arbitration in Berman FTS INTERNATIONAL: Wants IPO Class Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court GENIUS BRANDS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 19 Deadline GNC HOLDINGS: No Trial Schedule Set for Naranjo Class Action GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Suit over Fluctuating Workweek Claims GOGO INC: Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint in Pierrelouis Suit GOOGLE INC: Class Action Lawyers Want Consultant's Fee Suit Tossed GOOGLE: Must Face AdWords California Class Action HD SUPPLY: Settlement in Ga. Stockholders' Suit Wins Final OK HDFC BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Motion for Class Status Due in February 2021 INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Set Aside Judgment Still Pending JELD-WEN HOLDING: Agrees to $37.5MM Deals in Two Virginia Suits JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Judge Tosses PPP Agents' Consolidated Actions JUMPSPORT INC: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA in New York JUST BORN: Nov. 10 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces New Securities Class Action in Calif. KILOO: Plaintiffs Seek Court Nod on Child Privacy Settlements LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action LHC GROUP: Class Status Sought for Farmer and Moore Suit LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Class Suit Underway in California LLR INC: Must Face Alaska Sales Tax Class Action MASSACHUSETTS: Parent Gathers Names to Join Flu Shot Class Action MEDLEY CAPITAL: Oct. 21 Hearing on Bid for Final Settlement Okay MEI PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 9 Motion Deadline MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Strike Freedman Complaint Pending MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement with General Hospital Underway NATIONAL FREIGHT: Misclassification Class Action Can Proceed NATIONAL TIRE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay NCL CORP: Securities Suit over Misleading COVID Statements Pending NEW YORK: 762 Restaurants Join Indoor Dining Class Action NORTHPORT-EAST MIDDLE: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Consolidated Amended Suit Over COVID-19 NUTRACEUTICAL CORPORATION: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline PENNSYLVANIA: Howard Files Prisoner Rights Suit PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gibson Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing PORTMEIRION GROUP: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Underway PPL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Talen Montana Class Suit Still Pending PROGENITY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 27 Deadline PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Class Action Recovers More Than GBP42.5MM PVH CORP: Proskauer Obtains Dismissal of Class Action Claims QUALCOMM INC: Seeks Dismissal of $15-Bil. Antitrust Class Action QUTOUTIAO INC: Portnoy Law Alerts of Class Action Filing QUTOUTIAO INC: Scott+Scott Alerts of Class Action Filing RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit over Privacy Violations Underway RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Suit Shelved Pending Settlement Approval SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sanford Heisler Files Amended Class Suit SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Tonkawa Asserts Card Shuffling Machine Monopoly SHOE SHOW INC: Smith, et al. File ERISA Class Action SINCRO LLC: Bergeron Files Suit in California STAAR SURGICAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline SUNRUN INC: Reaches $5.5MM Settlement Pact for Loftus Class Action THGPP LLC: Jaquez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Pending TOPGOLF: Former Employees File Class Action Over BIPA Violation ULTRA PETROLEUM: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Robert Anderson Class Action Amended US PREMIUM: NBP Faces 2 Suits over Product Label Misrepresentation US PREMIUM: NBP Still Faces 4 Antitrust Class Suits in Minnesota VARIAN MEDICAL: Zimmer Files Suit Over Siemens Merger Deal VAXART INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid for Leave to Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending VILLA COLOMBO: Faces $25MM Covid-19 Class Action YELP INC: Securities Class Action in California Still Pending YODLEE INC: Emerson Firm Announces Continued Investigation ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Judge Tosses Proposed Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Daniel Wiessner at Reuters reports that a federal judge in Boston has tossed out a proposed class action by 7-Eleven Inc franchisees in Massachusetts who say they are essentially glorified store managers and should be treated as the company's employees under state wage law. U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton agreed with 7-Eleven and its lawyers at DLA Piper that Massachusetts' strict law for determining when workers are employees or independent contractors was trumped by a Federal Trade Commission rule requiring franchisors to exercise "significant control" over franchise owners. [GN] AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: 2nd Consolidated Complaint Filed in "Keryx" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that in the class action suit entitled, In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., the lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint on July 2, 2020. The Second Consolidated Complaint (i) asserts the same claims under the Exchange Act as the Consolidated Complaint, (ii) names the same defendants as the Consolidated Complaint, (iii) seeks the same relief as the Consolidated Complaint and (iv) as with the Consolidated Complaint, challenges as false or misleading alleged misstatements or omissions related to certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by the Company's advisors. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, the Company completed the Merger. In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of the Company's Board of Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt action, the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in connection with the Merger. Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the Consolidated Action. The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The alleged misstatements or omissions related to (i) certain financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by the Company's advisors and (ii) any alleged negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger. The Consolidated Complaint sought compensatory and/or rescissory damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and experts' fees. The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August 2, 2019. On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Action in its entirety. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- The appeal in the class action suit entitled, Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to Akebia Therapeutics, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on February 27, 2017). Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016. The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships, and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016 announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia. By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his complaint, and also moved for class certification. The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions for judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19, 2019. On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification, granting defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to further amend his Complaint. That same day, the Massachusetts District Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The parties completed appellate briefing on May 19, 2020, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals has set oral argument for September 15, 2020. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ALTERYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of the Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE: AYX) between May 6, 2020 and August 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Alteryx investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Alteryx class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1933.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] AMCOL SYSTEMS: Thompson Alleges Violation under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMCOL Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Devonte Thompson, other, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMCOL Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-03220 (S.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Amcol Systems, Inc. provides receivables collection and management services. The Company offers self pay collection, bad debt recovery, and insurance claims resolution services. Amcol Systems operates in the State of South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic St Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in American Electric Power Company, Inc. (NYSE:AEP). Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. American Electric Power Company, Inc. (NYSE:AEP) Investors Affected: November 2, 2016 - July 24, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in American Electric Power Company, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company covertly participated in the "the largest public corruption case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6 ("HB6"), which benefited the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and misleading; 6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal, and financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought brought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the its repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, the Company sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/american-electric-power-company-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9165&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] AMERICAN RENAL: Approval of Vandevar Settlement Pact Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the parties in the class action suit entitled, Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MA, have filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement of the action and which remains subject to court approval. The principal terms agreed upon by the parties contemplate a settlement payment of US$5,775,000, which will be made by the Company's insurer, in exchange for a release of claims. The settlement will resolve the claims asserted against all defendants in the action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them, and defendants continue to deny all of the allegations and claims asserted in this action. On March 28, 2019 and April 19, 2019, putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. Both complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings. The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired ARA's securities from August 10, 2016 to March 27, 2019. On July 3, 2019, the complaints were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action complaint, captioned Ali Vandevar, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings Inc., et al., No. 19-09074-ES-MAH (the "Vandevar Action"). On November 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers. The amended complaint asserts federal securities laws claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder related to the matters disclosed in the March 27 Form 8-K and certain prior filings. On January 17, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 24, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On February 26, 2020, the parties participated in a mediation. On March 11, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims asserted in this lawsuit. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. is a national provider of kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture, or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests. AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5MM Settlement Remains Subject to Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- Americold Realty Trust's US$2.5 million preliminary settlement of the class action suit initiated by a former employee remains subject to court approval, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On February 22, 2019, a former employee filed a putative class action against the Company in the San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3) failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated California unfair business practices. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are asserted in the complaint. The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel later dismissed plaintiff's vacation wages claim from his first amended complaint. The Company denies the plaintiff's claims and denies that plaintiff and the putative class members have been damaged in any respect or in any amount as a result of any act or omission by the Company. The Company also denies that this case is appropriate for class treatment and further asserts, among other grounds, that this case is unmanageable as a PAGA representative action. The Company has entered into a preliminary settlement of the case for US$2.5 million. The settlement of the case is subject to court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Americold Realty Trust is a provider of cold storage services headquartered in Atlanta, and is organized as a real estate investment trust. The firm is focused on the ownership, operation, development and acquisition of temperature-controlled real estate. Americold also provides additional services including warehouse handling and value-add logistics services to manage the entire temperature-controlled supply chain. AMYRIS INC: Flatischler Plaintiffs Withdraw Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the securities class action styled, Flatischler v. Melo, et al., have withdrawn their complaint as moot following the Company's filing of a supplement to the July 2020 proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to Amyris, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the SEC for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The plaintiffs currently seek attorney's fees and reimbursement of certain legal expenses related to filing the complaint. Amyris, Inc. is facing securities actions filed in Delaware, California and New York related to alleged a breach of fiduciary obligation to disclose material information to stockholders in the proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On July 24, 2020, a securities class action complaint was filed against Amyris and the members of the Company's Board in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Flatischler v. Melo, et al.). The complaint alleged a breach of fiduciary obligation to disclose material information to stockholders in the proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2020 (Proxy), with respect to the Company's special stockholders' meeting to be held on August 14, 2020 (Special Meeting), at which stockholders will vote to approve the conversion of all outstanding indebtedness under the Foris Convertible Note and of the Company's Series E Preferred Stock issued in the June 2020 PIPE into shares of common stock, in accordance with Nasdaq Listing Standard Rule 5635(d). The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Special Meeting. On August 6, 2020, the plaintiffs withdrew their complaint as moot following the Company's filing of a supplement to the Proxy on August 5, 2020. The Proxy supplement provided additional information regarding the approval process of the LSA Amendment and the June 2020 PIPE, and the relationships between the Company and its financial advisors to the June 2020 PIPE. Three substantially similar complaints were filed: one on July 28, 2020, in the United States District Court of Delaware (Sabatini v. Amyris, Inc.); one on July 31, 2020, in the Northern District of California (Nair v. Amyris); and another on August 4, 2020, in the Southern District of New York (Chamorro v. Amyris). The Company said, "We believe that these complaints lack merit, and intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously. Given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible to reliably determine any potential liability that could result from these matters." Amyris, Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California. AMYRIS INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Amyris, Inc. continues to await the Court's ruling on a motion to dismiss the securities class action complaint filed in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On April 3, 2019, a securities class action complaint was filed against Amyris and its CEO, John G. Melo, and former CFO (and current Chief Business Officer), Kathleen Valiasek, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 15, 2018 and March 19, 2019. The complaint, which was amended by the lead plaintiff on September 13, 2019, alleges securities law violations based on statements and omissions made by the Company during such period. On October 25, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the securities class action complaint. The hearing on such motion to dismiss was held on February 18, 2020 and the Company is awaiting a ruling from the Court. Subsequent to the filing of the securities class action complaint, on June 21, 2019 and October 1, 2019, respectively, two separate purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Bonner v. Doerr, et al., and Carlson v. Doerr, et al.) based on similar allegations to those made in the securities class action complaint and named the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The derivative lawsuits sought to recover, on the Company's behalf, unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the Company in connection with allegedly misleading statements and omissions made in connection with the Company's securities filings. The derivative lawsuits were dismissed on October 18, 2019 (Bonner) and December 10, 2019 (Carlson), without prejudice. The Company said it believes the securities class action complaint lacks merit, and intends to continue to defend ourselves vigorously. The Company further stated that given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible to reliably determine any potential liability that could result from these matters. Amyris, Inc. provides various alternatives to a range of petroleum-sourced products worldwide. The company uses its industrial bioscience technology to design microbes primarily yeast, as well as to convert plant-sourced sugars into renewable ingredients. The company is based in Emeryville, California. ANAPLAN INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Anaplan Inc. ("Anaplan" or the "Company") (NYSE: PLAN) on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Anaplan between November 21, 2019 and February 26, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Anaplan investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and unattainable. Further, the Complaint also alleges that while in possession of this material non-public information, Anaplan insiders sold approximately $30 million worth of Anaplan stock at artificially inflated prices. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Anaplan during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 23, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] ANAPTYSBIO INC: Securities Class Suit on Etokimab Reports Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ AnaptysBio, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative shareholder class action suit related to its drug etokimab, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On March 25, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming AnaptysBio and certain of its current or former officers as defendants. The complaint purports to assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and entities who acquired the Company's common stock between October 10, 2017 and November 7, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions regarding the Company's etokimab drug that artificially inflated the Company's stock price. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages in an unspecified amount, as well as costs and expenses. The Company said, "We believe that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. Because AnaptysBio is in the early stages of this litigation matter, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter." AnaptysBio, Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing first-in-class immunology therapeutic product candidates to patients. The Company is based in San Diego, California. ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Nelson Oliveira, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against a New Jersey nursing home where police found 17 bodies piled in a makeshift morgue during the height of the coronavirus pandemic. The lawsuit accuses Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation Center, which operates two facilities in Sussex County, of not taking proper precautions to protect its residents against COVID-19 and failing to notify the families of the people whose bodies were stuffed in a small room back in April. "It has been widely reported that, at or around that time, many family members and other authorized representatives of residents were unable to get in contact with staff or other personnel of the facilities; in many cases, family members went multiple weeks without receiving any update as to the status of their loved ones," the lawsuit alleges. New Jersey resident Brian Roberts filed the complaint on Sept. 8 in Sussex County Superior Court on behalf of his uncle, who was a resident of the nursing home and died on April 1 after getting infected with coronavirus. Roberts said his family relied on Andover's repeated representations over the years that its facilities in Lafayette Township were "high quality and regulatory-compliant." "Were it not for the representations made by the Defendants that Roberts and the Decedent relied upon, they would not have chosen the facilities," his lawyers wrote in the suit. Court records suggest that as many as 94 Andover residents and patients have died from the virus. The lawsuit also cites an April 21 inspection that reportedly found that one of the two facilities was "not following infection control safety practices and guidance recommended" by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other health agencies during the pandemic. The complaint names both facilities, numerous employees, several business entities involved with the nursing home and its owners, Louis Schwartz and Chaim Scheinbaum. Roberts accuses the group of violating the consumer fraud act as well as state and federal nursing home laws. He also asked the court to recognize all Andover residents as a class in the lawsuit. A representative for the nursing home could not be reached for comment on Sept. 9, but an attorney for Scheinbaum told NBC News that the facilities did take COVID-19 seriously. "We monitored and complied with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines," the statement reads. "Despite all our efforts, the virus made its way into our facility, as it did in the majority of long-term care facilities across New Jersey. We took every possible step to handle this crisis internally while simultaneously making dozens of outreaches to local, state, and federal agencies for help." The complaint further accuses the nursing home of engaging in "deceptive, misleading and unconscionable commercial practices" through false advertising and other practices. [GN] ANDOVER SUBACUTE: Faces Covid 19 Victims' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Legal Reader reports that a New Jersey nursing home is facing a class action after local authorities found a makeshift morgue housing the bodies of 17 coronavirus patients. Legal Reader relates that NJ.com relayed the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Sussex County by New Jersey resident Brian Roberts, whose uncle, Albert, died from coronavirus on April 1st. Albert Roberts, says the lawsuit, was a victim of administrative negligence at Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation Center I and II. The Center, claims Brian, was aware of the risks posed by coronavirus but did not take adequate measures to mitigate the disease's spread. "Despite the very serious risk of outbreak at the Facilities, and the dire consequences that would result if one were to occur, Defendants failed to take reasonable or adequate precautions to protect their residents and/or patients against the potential spread of COVID-19," the lawsuit states. Roberts, notes NJ.com, also accused Andover of violating state and federal statutes governing nursing home procedures and protocol. In his lawsuit, Roberts says that Andover made "false promises, misrepresentations and deceptive statements" by marketing its centers as both high-quality and in compliance with federal law. In reality, though, Andover had received a single star rating from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a federal entity that assesses the quality of long-term care facilities. According to NJ.com, CMS had cited Andover I for 24 regulatory violations, with Andover II receiving 48 regulatory violations. "Roberts and the Decedent would not have chosen the Facilities for Decedent's nursing home/rehabilitation services, or would not have paid what they did had they known Defendants' representations regarding the quality and safety of the Facilities were false and deceptive," the lawsuit states. However, Andover owner Chaim Scheinbaum-who is named as a defendant alongside co-owner Louis Schwartz-has maintained his nursing home had taken early steps to prevent residents from contracting coronavirus. "We monitored and complied with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines," Scheinbaum said. "Despite all our efforts, the virus made its way into our facility, as it did in the majority of long-term care facilities across New Jersey. We took every possible step to handle this crisis internally while simultaneously making dozens of outreaches to local, state, and federal agencies for help." Scheinbaum further said that Andover has not had a single resident test positive for coronavirus since mid-May. Robert's lawsuit, notes NJ.com, is not the only one that has been filed against Andover I and II. Joseph Maglioli, the son of another Andover resident who died from coronavirus, is also suing the nursing home and its administrators. But in response to Maglioli's lawsuit, Andover's management said that some residents-like Maglioli-were already so ill they would not have benefited from additional medical aid. "Plaintiffs' conditions were the direct and proximate result of the natural degenerative changes of the human body, and have ‘and would have' occurred despite any and all intervention, prescription and treatment, or lack thereof, by these defendants," Andover said. [GN] APOLLO GLOBAL: Bids to Dismiss Amended Presidio Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint in the case styled, Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, related to the acquisition of Presidio, Inc., are still pending, according to Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.)'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On October 21, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Presidio, Inc. ("Presidio"), all of the members of Presidio's board of directors (including five directors who are affiliated with Apollo), and BC Partners Advisors L.P. and Port Merger Sub, Inc. (together, "BCP") challenging the then-pending acquisition of Presidio by BCP (the "Merger"). The action is captioned Firefighters Pension System of City of Kansas City, Missouri Trust v. Presidio, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL. The original complaint alleged that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation of the Merger and that the disclosures Presidio made in its filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, and that BCP aided and abetted those alleged breaches. On November 5, 2019, the Court of Chancery held a hearing on a motion by plaintiffs to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote and denied that motion. On January 28, 2020, following the closing of the Merger, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding as defendants AGM Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. (together, the "Apollo Defendants") and LionTree Advisors, LLC (Presidio's financial advisor in connection with the Merger). The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the Presidio directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, that the filings with the SEC in connection with the Merger omitted material information, that the Apollo Defendants were controlling stockholders of Presidio and breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Presidio's public stockholders, and that BCP, LionTree and the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory relief, class certification, and unspecified money damages. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and filed supporting memoranda on April 30, 2020. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. The Company further stated, "Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Defendants Seek to Nix Patel Derivative, Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants have filed motions to dismiss Vrajeshkumar Patel's putative stockholder derivative and class action complaint against Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.), among other defendants, in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020, according to Apollo Global's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On May 29, 2020, plaintiff Vrajeshkumar Patel filed a putative stockholder derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Talos Energy, Inc. ("Talos"), all of the members of Talos's board of directors (including two Apollo partners), Riverstone Holdings, LLC ("Riverstone"), AGM Inc., and Guggenheim Securities, LLC in connection with the acquisition of certain assets from Castex Energy 2014, LLC and ILX Holdings, LLC in February 2020. The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and Talos, direct and derivative claims against Apollo, Riverstone, and the individual defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff alleges that Apollo and Riverstone comprise a controlling shareholder group. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and unspecified money damages. On August 4, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Company said, "Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Request to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff's motion to remand the putative class action initiated by Benjamin Fongers from the Northern District of Illinois to the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, remains pending, according to Apollo Global Management, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against CareerBuilder, LLC ("CareerBuilder") and AGM Inc. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan. Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AGM Inc.'s agent. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on January 6, 2020. That motion was fully briefed on February 14, 2020. Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint is 21 days after the court rules on the remand motion. The Company said, "Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Seeks to Drop Class Suit of Former MPM Shareholders ------------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, Inc. (AGM Inc.) has moved to dismiss a complaint filed on behalf of a putative class of former shareholders of MPM Holdings, Inc., according to Apollo Global's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. In March 2020, Frank Funds, which claims to be a former shareholder of MPM Holdings, Inc. ("MPM"), commenced an action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Frank Funds v. Apollo Global Management, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0130, against AGM Inc., certain former MPM directors (including three Apollo officers and employees), and members of the consortium that acquired MPM in a May 2019 merger. The complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class of former MPM shareholders, a claim against Apollo for breach of its fiduciary duties as MPM's alleged controlling shareholder in connection with the May 2019 merger in which a consortium acquired MPM. Frank Funds seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. On July 1, 2020, Apollo moved to dismiss the complaint; briefing on that motion has not yet begun. The Company said, "Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time." Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement of IDT IPO Suits Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the class action suits entitled, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation and Perdomo v. ADT Inc., is still subject to court approval, according to Apollo Global Management, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. Five shareholders filed substantially similar putative class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018, alleging violations of the Securities Act in connection with the January 19, 2018 IPO of ADT Inc. common stock. The actions were consolidated on July 10, 2018, and the case was re-captioned, In re ADT Inc. Shareholder Litigation. On August 24, 2018, the state-court plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming as defendants ADT Inc., several ADT officers and directors, the IPO underwriters (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), AGM Inc. and certain other Apollo affiliates. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the registration statement and prospectus for the IPO contained false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information about certain litigation in which ADT was involved, ADT's efforts to protect its intellectual property, and competitive pressures ADT faced. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on October 23, 2018, and those motions were fully briefed. On May 21, 2018, a similar shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming as defendants ADT, several officers and directors, and AGM Inc. The federal action, captioned Perdomo v. ADT Inc., generally alleged that the registration statement was materially misleading because it failed to disclose ongoing deterioration in ADT's financial results, along with certain customer and business metrics. On July 20, 2018, several alleged ADT shareholders filed competing motions to be named lead plaintiff in the federal action. On November 20, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on January 15, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint named the same Apollo-affiliated defendants as the state-court action, along with three new Apollo entities. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 25, 2019, and those motions were fully briefed. On July 26, 2019, the state court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, except it reserved judgment on the question whether it has personal jurisdiction over certain defendants, including the Apollo defendants. On September 12, 2019, all parties to the state and federal actions reached a settlement in principle that would resolve both actions. The plaintiffs in the federal action voluntarily dismissed their action on October 28, 2019, and the settlement will be submitted to the state court for approval. The settlement requires no payment from any Apollo defendants. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. ASH SOUNDS: Settles Falls Festival Crush Victims' Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Caleb Triscari, writing for NME, reports that the company behind Falls Festival has agreed to pay just under $7 million to victims of the 2016 crowd crush incident in a class action settlement. A group of festivalgoers were crushed during a crowd stampede while leaving the Grand Theatre stage of the festival's Lorne leg four years ago. Paramedics ended up treating around 80 people, with 20 taken to hospital for further treatment. Court proceedings commenced the following year by lead plaintiff Michela Burke, with 77 people eventually making up the class action. The settlement was approved by the Supreme Court of Victoria, in a ruling published. The company, Ash Sounds Pty Ltd, agreed to pay $6,975,000 in damages, admitting liability for the incident. In a statement reported by the ABC, Kathryn Emeny, the principal at Maddens, the firm representing the plaintiff, said the settlement was welcomed. "The compensation payments will enable group members to look to, and plan for, the future. In respect of some of the larger claims, we anticipate the compensation payment will be life-changing," she said. Burke added, "I am relieved that the matter is close to finalisation and we can finally begin to put the crowd crush behind us." In a statement to Hack, a spokesperson from Falls Festival said, "We hope that the settlement will bring some relief and closure for all of the participants." "We also want to assure the participants and all those who attend our events, that health and safety is our number one priority. We care deeply about the welfare of our patrons, and are continually improving and adapting our safety protocols on an ongoing basis." Last month, Falls Festival announced its 2020/2021 events would not go ahead as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The announcement came after event organisers said they intended to host an all-Australian lineup in light of border closures. "In May, as the nation seemed to be moving into recovery mode, we were optimistic about forging ahead and supporting our local industry with an all Aussie edition of Falls Festival," organisers said in a statement. "We were especially excited to reunite many live music fans, get industry crew back on the job and contribute to the economies of the communities where Falls takes place." [GN] AUSTRALIA: Teens, Nun File Class Action Over Climate Change ----------------------------------------------------------- Rachael Conaghan, writing for Junkee, reports that a group of young Aussies have launched a class action suit against Australia's Federal Environmental Minister, arguing she has a duty of care to protect the next generation from climate change. Eight teenagers -- with the help of an 85-year-old nun -- have filed an injunction to stop Sussan Ley approving a coal mine expansion in north-west NSW, arguing the carbon emissions would jeopardise their future. The class action was launched in the Federal Court of Australia on Sept. 8, and includes every single person under the age of 18 around the world. The eight Aussies who launched the case have all been involved in School Strike 4 Climate, who organised last year's massive climate change walk out at schools across the country. "I'm joining this case because a decision to approve the Vickery Extension Project and its climate impacts would be a decision made in complete disregard for the futures of young people and the state of our country," one activist, 16-year-old Anj Sharma, said. "Every single year, we have seen our country face so much turmoil, with fires that destroy more and more property, floods that take lives and storms that cause so much destruction. "Every consecutive summer is labelled as ‘the worst summer this country has ever faced,' and yet instead of addressing this crisis, more mines are being given the green light. This has to stop and I am proud to be doing something to help stop it." Why Have They Launched This Class Actions? One of the plaintiffs involved is 13-year-old Izzy Raj-Seppings, who made headlines last year when police ordered her to move on by police while at a climate rally outside the Prime Minister's Kirribilli House. She hopes the court action will force the government to listen to young people, and said they would not give up until they take proper action on climate change. Year 12 student Veronica Hester is also part of the class action, and hopes it will help set a precedent for future coal mines. She's worried about the health impacts of climate change, but also the economic ones. "I am worried about job security, high food prices from lower food supply, worsening recessions, and lower quality of life. I want to live in a country that prioritises long-term economic growth and securing my generation's future," she said. "By allowing the Vickery Extension Project and other projects like it that cause climate change, the government is acting immorally and being economically short-sighted. "The Australian government should prioritise competitiveness and long-term economic growth in a world that is inevitably moving towards renewable energy." Another climate activist, 14-year-old Bella Burgmeister, has also authored a book to help kids understand the climate crisis. "Our government is still approving these mines knowing they are a direct cause of rising temperatures, increasing CO2 levels, extreme nature events, ecosystems disappearing and food and water shortages. It is time to put our futures before fossil fuels and profits," she said. "We want what you had -- a clean and healthy planet for a clean and healthy life." David Barnden from Equity Generation Lawyers, who are representing the students pro-bono, said the action provides the opportunity for young people around the world to take part -- if you're under 18 you can support them by joining the case here. "The government fully understands the causes and implications of the climate crisis. Young Australians should be protected from the harm they will face from climate change," David said. Sister Brigid Arthur has also joined as the litigation guardian for the students, who are all aged between 13 and 17. She is a Brigidine Sister, and is also the co-founder and coordinator of the Brigidine Asylum Seekers' Project. What Mine Are They Worried About? The mine in question is the Vickery coal mine, north of Gunnedah in NSW. Last month operators Whitehaven Coal were controversially given approval to expand the mine by the Independent Planning Commission (IPC). Their application to build the extension is now before Environmental Minister Sussan Ley, who must decide whether to give it final approval or not. The class action has asked for an injunction on her decision, which is expected this month. After a public hearing in July the IPC ruled the expansion was in the public interest, and the associated impacts could be managed. The approval came a day after the NSW Resources Regulator announced it was taking Whitehaven to court for allegedly breaching mining approvals at another site last year. It's the third legal action that's been bought against them this year — one for allegedly taking water it wasn't entitled to, and another for allegedly failing to offset the forests it destroyed. Nothing to worry about there, I'm sure. Whitehaven Coal is the leading Australian producer of premium-quality coal, and operates four mines in the Gunnedah Coal Basin. [GN] BAOBURG INC: Resto Staff Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachavadee Suteesorn and Nontaporn Chongpitakwong, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Baoburg Inc. and Suchanan Askonann, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04138 (E.D. N.Y., September 3, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at 614 Manhattan Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, 11222 under the name "Baoburg" where Plaintiffs were employed as a cook and waitresses. They claim to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Class Status Motion in Florida Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System's motion for class certification in a purported securities class action lawsuit initiated by Julian Keippel in Florida remains pending, according to Benefytt Technologies, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On February 18, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled Julian Keippel v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., Gavin Southwell, and Michael D. Hershberger, Case No. 8:19-cv-00421, was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. According to the complaint, the plaintiff in the action is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs on behalf of a putative class of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the period February 28, 2018 through November 27, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions during the purported class period relating to the Company's relationship with third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health Plans and affiliates. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company failed to disclose to investors that a substantial portion of the Company's revenues were derived from third parties who allegedly used deceptive tactics to sell the Company's products and that regulatory scrutiny of such third parties would materially impact the Company's operations. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act. On May 13, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiff Oklahoma Municipal Retirement Fund and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System and lead counsel Saxena White P.A. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 19, 2019. The consolidated complaint incorporated the allegations from the first complaint and added allegations of alleged materially false or misleading statements or material omissions relating to alleged deficiencies in the Company's compliance and customer service programs and the number of complaints the Company received from consumers relating to third parties, particularly Health Benefits One LLC/Simple Health and affiliates. The complaint also adds allegations regarding insider stock sales by Messrs. Southwell and Hershberger. The plaintiffs are seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of putative classes of individuals and entities that acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a purported class period of September 25, 2017 through April 11, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the action, which the court denied on November 4, 2019. The case is currently in discovery. The lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on May 21, 2020, Defendants filed a response on July 2, 2020, and the lead plaintiffs' reply was due on August 13, 2020. Benefytt Technologies said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. While it is reasonably possible that a loss may arise from this matter, the amount of such loss is not known or estimable at this time." Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Griffin, et al. Suit in Alabama Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is facing the potential class action initiated by Griffin, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Company said, "In a case styled as Griffin, et al., v. Benefytt Technologies, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-00630, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, dated May 5, 2020, styled as a class action but not yet certified, two plaintiffs allege misrepresentation, RICO, other claims relating to the sale of an insurance policy that allegedly did not cover medical bills. The Company is vigorously asserting defenses against the claims." Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BENEFYTT TECHNOLOGIES: Health Enrollment Suit vs. Ketayi Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Benefytt Technologies, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that it will "vigorously assert defenses against the claims" in a case styled as Ketayi, et al. v. Health Enrollment Group, et al., Case No. 20-cv-01198, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, dated June 26, 2020. The case is styled as a class action but not yet certified. The plaintiffs allege misrepresentation, RICO, conspiracy and other state law claims relating to the sale of an insurance policy that allegedly did not cover hospital bills. Benefytt Technologies, Inc., a health insurance technology company, primarily engages in the development and operation of private e-commerce health insurance marketplaces, consumer engagement platforms, agency technology systems, and insurance policy administration platforms. It offers a range of Medicare-related insurance plans, as well as various types of health insurance and supplemental products. The company was formerly known as Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. and changed its name to Benefytt Technologies, Inc. in March 2020. Benefytt Technologies, Inc. is based in Tampa, Florida. BLACKROCK INC: Calif. High Court Won't Review Case Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ BlackRock, Inc. stated in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the defendants in the class action suit related to iShares(R) exchange-traded funds (iShares ETFs) continue to believe the claims in the lawsuit are without merit. The California Supreme Court has denied plaintiffs' petition for further review of the appeal. On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its advisory subsidiaries, and the directors and certain officers of the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in California state court. The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the "ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the ETFs the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a "flash crash." The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages. The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day bench trial. On December 1, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit and, on January 23, 2020, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal. On May 27, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for further review of the appeal. The defendants continue to believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to institutional clients and to retail investors through various investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies, and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York. BLACKROCK INC: Still Defends Class Suit over Employee 401(k) Plan ----------------------------------------------------------------- BlackRock, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California filed on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries in the BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan from April 5, 2011 to the present, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a CTF class and granted their motion to certify the Plan class on February 11, 2020. On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. ("BTC"), the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as defendants in the purported class action lawsuit brought by a former employee. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things, offering investment options that were overly expensive, underperformed unaffiliated peer funds, focused disproportionately on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated in investment options managed by BlackRock. On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which, among other things, added as defendants certain current and former members of the BlackRock Retirement and Investment Committees. The Amended Complaint also included a new purported class claim on behalf of investors in certain CTFs managed by BTC. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that BTC, as fiduciary to the CTFs, engaged in self-dealing by, most significantly, selecting itself as the securities lending agent on terms that the plaintiffs claim were excessive. The Amended Complaint also alleged that BlackRock took undue risks in its management of securities lending cash reinvestment vehicles during the financial crisis. On August 23, 2018, the court granted permission to the plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which added as defendants the BlackRock, Inc. Management Development and Compensation Committee, the Plan's independent investment consultant and the Plan's Administrative Committee and its members. On October 22, 2018, BlackRock filed a motion to dismiss the SAC, and on June 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify both the Plan and the CTF classes. On September 3, 2019, the court granted BlackRock's motion to dismiss part of the plaintiffs' claim seeking to recover alleged losses in the securities lending vehicles but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. On February 11, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the CTF class and granted their motion to certify the Plan class. On April 27, 2020, the Ninth Circuit denied plaintiffs' request to immediately appeal the class certification ruling. The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. BlackRock, Inc. provides investment management services to institutional clients and to retail investors through various investment vehicles. The Company manages funds, as well as offers risk management services. BlackRock serves governments, companies, and foundations worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York. BLINK CHARGING: Gross Law Alerts of Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK). Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK) Investors Affected: March 6, 2020 - August 19, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Blink Charging Company. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (ii) Blink's purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (iii) the purported growth of the Company's network has been overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/blink-charging-company-loss-submission-form/?id=9165&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BLINK CHARGING: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 9 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Blink Charging Company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Blink Charging Company (NASDAQ:BLNK) BLNK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2020 - August 19, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/blink-charging-company-information-request-form?prid=9139&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Blink Charging Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) many of Blink’s charging stations are damaged, neglected, non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (ii) Blink’s purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were overstated; (iii) the purported growth of the Company’s network has been overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] BRASKEM SA: Hires U.S. Law Firm for Alagaoas Salt Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Valle, writing for Reuters, reports that Braskem SA was notified of a class-action lawsuit filed with the Federal Court of the District of New Jersey and has hired a law firm in the U.S. to represent the company, it said in a filing on late on Aug. 31. The class action involves Braskem geological issues with a salt mine in Alagoas state. It includes investors that bought specific securities between May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020, the company said. [GN] BROOKDALE SENIOR: Faces Securities Class Suit in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is facing a a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws filed in the federal court for the Middle District of Tennessee, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020 In June 2020, the Company and several current and former executive officers were named as defendants in the putative class action lawsuit, which asserts that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's business, operational and compliance policies that caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated between August 2016 and April 2020. Brookdale Senior said, "While the Company cannot predict with certainty the result of this or any other legal proceedings, the Company believes the allegations in the suit are without merit and does not expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows." Brookdale Senior Living Inc. is an operator of senior living communities throughout the United States. The Company is committed to providing senior living solutions primarily within properties that are designed, purpose-built, and operated to provide quality service, care, and living accommodations for residents. The Company operates and manages independent living, assisted living, memory care, and continuing care retirement communities ("CCRCs"). The Company also offers a range of home health, hospice, and outpatient therapy services to residents of many of its communities and to seniors living outside of its communities. The Company is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. BROWN UNIVERSITY: Files Motion to Dismiss Refund Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia George, writing for The Brown Daily Herald, reports that Brown University has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by students seeking reimbursement of tuition, fees, and room and board following the University's decision to close campus in March and transition exclusively to online learning amid the coronavirus pandemic. The motion, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island Aug. 24, seeks dismissal on the grounds that the students' complaint failed to state a claim. "Teaching and learning for the final weeks of the semester took a different form -- as it had to -- but that change does not give rise to cognizable legal claims," the University's dismissal motion states. In the complaint, the students argue that the University failed to fulfill its "contract" with students when it transitioned classes online and then "unjustly enriched" itself with tuition revenue that should have been returned to students. They argue that the quality of the education they received online fell short of the in-person experience they paid for. But the University rejects the idea that additional reimbursements are in order. "While few aspects of our lives resemble life before the pandemic, the core value of a Brown degree remains unchanged," University spokesperson Brian Clark wrote in an email to The Herald. The plaintiffs failed to identify "any contractual term that obligates Brown to provide in-person, on-campus instruction," according to the motion to dismiss. "What Brown agrees to provide in return for tuition is up to five courses of instruction per semester -- with no promise as to the mode of instruction -- plus the accompanying credits toward earning a degree (if the student receives passing grades)," says the motion. "Brown met that obligation, and Plaintiffs do not allege otherwise." The University disputes the plaintiffs' claim that it unfairly benefited from the transition to online learning. According to the motion, the transition increased, rather than decreased, Brown's costs. The plaintiffs "point to no purported cost savings to Brown," the motion states, "and they ignore the obvious additional cost Brown had to incur to continue operations during a pandemic." The complaint was initially filed under the alias John Doe April 30. Two more students have since joined the lawsuit and the names of all three plaintiffs have been made public: Hyun Choi '21, Anna House '20 and Amy Pham '23. Choi and House declined to comment, and directed The Herald to their lawyer, Hagens Berman Associate Whitney Siehl. Pham did not respond to emails and messages requesting comment. The University issued credits or refunds for 50 percent of students' room-and-board fees for the semester adjusted based on the level of parent contribution. This partial refund, the plaintiffs claim, is insufficient. Colleges and universities nationwide are facing similar legal challenges from students, alums and parents who argue they are owed partial tuition and fee refunds for semesters cut short in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. The Seattle-based firm representing the named plaintiffs in the complaint against Brown has filed similar suits against more than a dozen other schools, including Harvard and Georgetown University, according to Siehl. Online classes pale in comparison to the on-campus learning experience, Siehl wrote in an email to The Herald. "We will vigorously oppose Brown's motion to dismiss the complaint," she added. While understanding the need for campus closure to safeguard community health, the plaintiffs argue that students deserved more of their money back when campus was shuttered in March. "We believe all students are entitled to fair tuition and fee reimbursements and intend to hold Brown accountable," Siehl wrote. But after being forced to close campus, the administration made provisions to fulfill the University's mission, according to the dismissal motion. Faculty continued to teach, students continued to take classes and a quality education was still offered, the motion claims. All three named plaintiffs completed the semester and earned the expected credits toward their degrees. House graduated while Choi and Pham have now re-enrolled in Brown for the fall, according to the motion. The University's motion also pointed to a broader legal context in which courts have recognized that universities deserve some autonomy when it comes to decisions related to education and scholarship. Deadlines for further briefing obligations have been extended following a motion jointly filed Aug. 28 by the students' and University's lawyers. The students' lawyers had until Sept. 15 to file in opposition to the University's dismissal motion. [GN] CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 9 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG) COG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9136&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] CAINE AND WEINER CO: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caine and Weiner Company, Inc. The case is styled as Samantha Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caine and Weiner Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-08461 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Caine & Weiner is a solution-based accounts receivable management enterprise, founded in 1930, that specializes in providing 1st and 3rd party collection solutions to commercial (B2B) and consumer (B2C) businesses in every major industry, including many Fortune 500 Companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq. Law Offices of Jonathan Stieglitz 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (323) 979-2063 Fax: (323) 488-6748 Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Suit of Children With Special Needs ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Fazil A. Munir announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the Governor of California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and nearly 1,000 School Districts across the state of California, on behalf of Plaintiffs and 800,000 children in California Schools with special needs, who have suffered irreparable harm. On August 31, 2020, the Law Offices of Fazil A. Munir filed a Class Action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 5:20-cv-01796, on behalf of the 800,000 children in California schools with special needs who are suffering irreparable harm by being sent to learn from home without any thought taken to the difficulties their disabilities cause in those circumstances. The Defendants are the Governor, the Superintendent of Education, and nearly 1,000 school districts across the state. The case is before the Honorable Judge Dolly Gee. Under the plan created by Governor Newsom under his May 4, 2020 Executive Order and the July 17, 2020 DPH Guidance, schools were closed, and special needs students were sent home to learn. But their IEPs were never adjusted to account for the difficulties these students face in distance learning / online instruction as compared to in-person instruction as a result of their individual disabilities. The failure of the Governor and School Districts to require accommodations for these moderate to severe students with disabilities violates federal law, the United States Constitution, and our civil rights laws. In a Recent Supreme Court Decision, the Court determined school districts must offer more than the bare minimum ("de minis") education to students with special needs. "De minis" by definition means barely any education at all. (See Endrew F., A Minor, By and Through His Parents and Next Friends, Joseph F. Et Al. v Douglas County School District.) Clearly, the District's virtual learning program amounts to even less than a "de minis" education for these special need students. The special needs students of California have been denied their fundamental right to a basic minimum education because of the "impossibility" of distance learning without any accommodations being made to account for their disabilities. The Governor understood this when he first ordered students to learn from home, he said all the right things, but he never followed through on the law, and no one else has either. The Superintendent failed to offer the legally correct guidance. And Districts across California never reassessed their special needs students. District Special Education Directors likewise have refused to provide compensatory services for students who regressed during the closure of school since March. It is inconceivable how the Governor and School Districts can order students with disabilities to learn from home without providing the necessary supports needed to address their disabilities, including but not limited to trained 1:1 aide support, behavioral intervention which requires a behavioral trained aide, speech and language services required by a speech & language augmentive communication specialist, and occupation and physical therapy by licensed professionals. But they did. They sent them home without assessment of their conditions. Instead, they dumped this responsibility on the parents, parents who are not trained in special education and speech therapy and physical therapy. That's unacceptable, especially with $1.5 billion set aside to help special needs students maintain their footing in this current crisis. Some Districts have even contended that virtual learning a few hours a day is equivalent to going to school for a six hour day. Other special education directors insist students with moderate to severe disabilities can turn on their chrome books and follow along in class without any assistance, not cognizant of the fact students who have a 1:1 aide assigned to them who assist with hand over hand assistance can't be prompted by the teacher on the computer where hand over hand is impossible. Or the student who has a Behavior Intervention Plan, which has the aide redirect the student back to their seat with a physical prompt which again is impossible to do over the computer. Defendants now announce they will require distance learning for the entire 2020-2021 School Year, which is a real and immediate threat of future injury to these students because they cannot learn at home without help and therefore are losing and will continue to lose a valuable formative year and will fall further behind their peers, and continue to suffer Irreparable Harm. We are not trying to force open the schools, we are trying to ensure that students with moderate to severe disabilities do not lose an entire year to neglect. They are entitled to a free and appropriate public education, a FAPE in accordance with Federal and California law, and to be placed on an even footing with every other student in the state. That means taking account of and accommodating for their disabilities. It is in the public interest for children with special needs to receive the education they are entitled to, especially where safe alternatives are available to achieve the Governor's and School District's goals. The School Districts need to step up and do the right thing, do what the law requires. The Superintendent needs to make them obey the law if they won't do it themselves. The Governor needs to show leadership on this issue and follow through his words with deeds. Give these students the opportunity to learn. If you wish to be included in the class action without any cost to you. If you would like to see a copy of the Federal Complaint or if you would like more information please click here, or go to: covid19classact.com or autismanswers.us Contact: James Peters Law Offices of Fazil Munir +1 949-636-6994 [GN] CAMILLA CARE: Faces $25MM Class Action on Covid 19 Victims ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomson Rogers has issued a class action proceeding claiming $25 million on behalf of residents of Camilla Care Community and their families. Camilla Care Community ("Camilla Care") is a long-term care home owned by Sienna Senior Living Inc., located in Mississauga, Ontario. At least 68 residents at Camilla Care have died as a result of contracting COVID-19 and related illnesses. One of the representative plaintiffs is Mehran Divanbeigi. Mehran's mother, Mehri, was a resident at Camilla Care. Mehri contracted COVID-19 while residing in a shared bedroom with three other residents at Camilla Care and died on May 28, 2020. Mehri is survived by her four children and 11 grandchildren. Mehran Divanbeigi represents family members of the victims who have lost loved ones, without given the opportunity to say good-bye, as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak at Camilla Care. It is alleged that following Ontario's declaration of a State of Emergency on March 17, 2020, Camilla Care failed to implement screening measures of its staff and basic social distancing practices, including the separation of infected and non-infected residents. It is alleged that during this period, there was severe under-staffing at Camilla Care and a failure to provide basic personal protective equipment ("PPE") to Camilla Care's staff. On May 27, 2020, the Government of Ontario appointed Trillium Health Partners as the interim manager of Camilla Care. In their Initial Report released on June 15, 2020, Trillium Health Partners made the following observations at Camilla Care during the period of April 22, 2020 to June 11, 2020: -- COVID-positive residents and COVID-negative residents sharing the same room; -- Lack of signage and/or inaccurate signage to clearly show which residents were COVID-positive versus negative; -- Staff not consistently/properly using PPE (i.e. masks, gloves, gowns, etc.); -- Staff observed wearing garbage bags over their clothing and on their feet as PPE; -- PPE locked away and not always accessible to staff; -- Cockroaches observed in the building; and, -- Due to significant under-staffing at times, staff reported they did not have the time to provide basic care to residents (toileting, feeding, and dressing), could not complete housekeeping tasks, and/or had difficulty getting meals prepared and delivered to residents. On June 7, 2020, the Globe and Mail published an article documenting allegations by a member of Trillium Health Partners' team deployed to Camilla Care, who remained anonymous. The allegations included observations of Camilla Care staff abusing residents, including incidents of staff hitting residents, forced feeding and verbal abuse. The Peel Regional Police have since confirmed investigation into these allegations. "This is the fifth action Thomson Rogers has advanced on behalf of residents of a long-term care home in Ontario and the fourth action against a Sienna Senior Living home. The observations of complete neglect and abuse documented by Trillium Health Partners and the anonymous employee at Camilla Care are appalling and unacceptable. Our vulnerable seniors deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and care," said Stephen Birman, a partner involved in the class actions. Camilla Care is also one of many long-term care homes in Ontario that requires four residents to share a single bedroom. A CBC Marketplace investigation found that a majority of deadly COVID-19 outbreaks occurred in older long-term care homes with four-bed wards that were operating at the outdated 1972 structural safety standard. The investigation included Camilla Care. The class action alleges that Camilla Care's failure to upgrade and/or renovate its building design, including eliminating four-resident bedrooms, caused and/or contributed to the mass spread of COVID-19 at the home. Mehran Divanbeigi and her family, as well as other families of the victims and survivors of Camilla Care, seek compensation for their tragic losses. Mehran Divanbeigi hopes that the independent commission into Ontario's long-term care system and the proposed class action will result in meaningful change to ensure that a tragedy like this is never repeated in Ontario's vulnerable long-term care population. For further information regarding this claim, please contact Stephen Birman at Thomson Rogers at sbirman@thomsonrogers.com (416-868-3137) or Lucy Jackson at ljackson@thomsonrogers.com (416-868-3154). Stephen Birman Thomson Rogers Tel: 416-868-3137 E-mail: sbirman@thomsonrogers.com Lucy Jackson Thomson Rogers Tel: 416-868-3154 E-mail: ljackson@thomsonrogers.com [GN] CENTRUS ENERGY: Sued Over Radioactive Contaminants, Health Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffery Walburn, Charles O. Lawson Jr., Kimberly M. Lawson, Karen Sue Walburn, Chaz Lawson, Kerrissa Lawson, James A. Walburn, Paul A. Brogdon, Stephen Patrick Spriggs, Donald Slone, Vicki P. Slone, Victoria Slone Moore, Toni West, Carl R. Hartley, Heather R. Hartley, Vina Colley, Anthony Preston David B. Rose, Michael E. Groves, George W. Clark, Estate of Kathy Sue Brogdon (deceased), Estate of Jay Paul Brogdon (deceased), and John Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, on behalf of themselves, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Centrus Energy Corp. (as successor-in interest to USEC Incorporated), United States Enrichment Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp., Uranium Disposition Services, LLC, BWXT Conversion Services, LLC, Mid-America Conversion Services, Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC, LATA/Parallax Portsmouth, LLC, Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth, LLC, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Martin Marietta Inc., Randy DeVault, Gregory Friedman, Emery Smith, Richard L. Coriell, Sandra Fout, Jack Tully, Clyde Dulin, Dale Allen, Ed Wagner, Joe Defenbaugh and Steven H. Ahrenholz, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04621, (S.D. Ohio, September 3, 2020), seeks to recover damages, and equitable, statutory and injunctive relief for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and the Price-Anderson Act. Plaintiffs are former and current employees of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and residents of the immediate vicinity of said plant. Defendants and the United States Department of Energy were involved in the past operation and present decommissioning, decontamination and demolition of the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the 3,777 acre nuclear industrial site in Piketon, Ohio which used to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons manufacturing, fuel for power plants and the U.S. Navy. The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, as well as at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, allegedly released radioactive isotopes into the surroundings causing widespread contamination of Pike and Scioto Counties in Ohio including other contaminants such as heavy metals, chemicals, gases, particulates and transuranic elements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan Hunter, Esq. HUNTER & HUNTER LLC 1491 Polaris Pkwy #21416 Columbus, OH 43240 Telephone: (234) 738-4648 Fax: (330) 294-1588 Email: nathan@hunterfirm.org - and - Dick Collins, Esq. COLLINS & TRUETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 8333 Northwest 53rd Street, Suite 450 Doral, FL 33166 Telephone: (833) 496-8529 Fax: (850) 216-2537 Email: dick@collinstruett.com - and - Tim Howard, Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES P.A. 1415 East Piedmont Drive, Suite 5 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Fax: (850) 216-2537 Email: tim@howardjustice.com CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Miller Suit Seeks Class Status -------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN MILLER, RICHARD GREY II, and STAN ALEMASKIN, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., CITIZENS BANK, N.A., and CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 1:17-cv-12352-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the proposed Collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and approving notice to be issued to the Collective Members; 2. directing the Defendants to produce a computer-readable list of names and current or last known mailing addresses, last known e-mail addresses, last known telephone numbers, and work locations for all Collective Members, within 10 days of the Court's Order; 3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to mail and e-mail the proposed Notice and Consent to Join form and mail the Reminder Postcard to the Collective Members; 4. authorizing a standalone website through which the Collective Members can submit Consent to Join forms; 5. directing the Defendants to produce the last four digits of the Social Security numbers of those Collective Members whose notices are returned undeliverable; 6. authorizing a 60-day notice period in which Collective Members can join the Collective; and 7. granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Citizens Financial is an American bank headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island, which operates in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35LUFWM at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective are: Molly A. Brooks, Esq. Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. Sabine Jean, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Hillary A. Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 - and - SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. 951 Yamato Rd., Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 COLONY CREDIT: Pomerantz Law Alerts of Class Action Filing ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony Credit Real Estate, Inc. ("Colony Credit" or the "Company") (NYSE: CLNC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 20-cv-08305, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired the common stock of Colony Credit pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and/or misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the combination of Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar") and NorthStar Real Estate Income Trust, Inc. ("NorthStar I") and NorthStar Real Estate Income II, Inc. ("NorthStar II") on or about February 1, 2018 (the "Merger"), seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Colony Credit securities during the class period, you have until November 9, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Colony Credit is a commercial real estate ("CRE") credit real estate investment trust ("REIT") that purports to manage a diversified portfolio of CRE senior mortgage loans, mezzanine loans, preferred equity, debt securities, and net leased properties predominantly in the U.S. The Company's common stock was registered with the SEC in connection with the Merger. Following the Merger, Colony Credit's common stock was listed on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") without an initial public offering: stockholders of NorthStar I received 0.3532 shares of the Company's Class A common stock for each share of NorthStar I common stock they owned; and stockholders of NorthStar II received 0.3511 shares of the Company's Class A common stock for each share of NorthStar II common stock they owned. The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and omitted to state: (i) that the credit quality of certain of the Company's assets had deteriorated prior to the Merger and were continuing to deteriorate at the time of the Merger; (ii) that certain of the Company's loans, including four loans of approximately $261 million related to a New York hotel, were substantially impaired, there was insufficient collateral to secure the loans, and it was unlikely that the loans would be repaid; (iii) that, as a result, the valuation attributed to certain of the Company's assets was overstated; (iv) that certain of the assets contributed as part of the Merger were of substantially lower value than reflected in the Company's financial statements and the Registration Statement; (v) that, as a result, the Company's financial condition, including its book value, was materially overstated; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, the positive statements in the Registration Statement about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 8, 2019, Colony Credit issued a press release to report its second-quarter 2019 financial results, in which it reported a $119 million provision for loan losses. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.00 per share, or more than 12%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $14.05 per share on August 12, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the Company announced a portfolio bifurcation of certain assets and disclosed a $127 million provision for loan losses. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.50 per share, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.75 per share on November 8, 2019. As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Colony Credit's shares last closed at $5.40 per share, representing a more than 78% decline from the $25 book value per share valued at the time of the Merger. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Tel no: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 Erswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Company and Full Circle Studies, Inc.'s settlement with plaintiffs in the class action litigation over alleged violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act remains subject to court approval. On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary, Full Circle Studies, Inc., ("Full Circle"), received demand letters on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such personal information by embedding advertising software development kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and damages under Massachusetts law. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices and right to privacy statutes. The complaints alleged damages in excess of US$5.0 million, with any award to be apportioned among the defendants. On February 26, 2020, the Company and Full Circle reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the complaints in full, with no admission of liability, in return for injunctive relief and payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, to be covered by the Company's insurance. The settlement is subject to court approval. comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. COSTA DEL MAR: Settles Class Action Lawsuit Over Sunglasses ----------------------------------------------------------- Max Marbut at Jax Daily Record reports that if you bought a pair of Costa Del Mar sunglasses before July 28, 2013, and later had to pay to have them repaired, you may be eligible for part of the proceeds from a class-action lawsuit. The U.S. District Court in Jacksonville preliminarily approved Sept. 3 a settlement in a complaint filed in August 2018 on behalf of three named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated by Peter Hargitai, an attorney in the Holland & Knight law firm's Jacksonville office. The plaintiffs contended that Daytona Beach-based Costa Del Mar for many years sold its products with a "lifetime warranty," but then charged customers a fee for repairs. The lawsuit alleged that Costa Del Mar violated the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which requires companies that offer a "lifetime warranty" to repair or replace defective consumer products without charge. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, filed Aug. 20 with the court, Costa agrees to issue vouchers ranging from $8.99 to $19.99 for each claim, redeemable for any item offered for sale on Costa Del Mar's website. The settlement certifies four classes in the action: * Florida purchase class: All Florida citizens who purchased Costa nonprescription sunglasses from July 28, 2013-Jan. 31, 2018. * Florida repair class: All citizens of Florida who purchased Costa nonprescription sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were charged a fee by Costa, from July 28, 2012, through the date of entry of the court's final order, to repair or replace their Costa nonprescription sunglasses damaged by accident, normal wear and tear or misuse. * Nationwide repair class: All citizens of the U.S., excluding citizens of Florida, who purchased Costa nonprescription sunglasses before Jan. 1, 2018, and were charged a repair fee by Costa, from April 3, 2015, through the date of entry of the court's final order, to repair or replace their Costa nonprescription sunglasses damaged by accident, normal wear and tear or misuse. * Warranty class: All citizens of the U.S. who purchased nonprescription Costa sunglasses prior to Jan. 1, 2016, and paid Costa a warranty fee to repair or replace non-prescription sunglasses damaged by a manufacturer's defect from Aug. 20, 2013, through the date of entry of the court's final order. Members of the Florida repair and nationwide repair classes will receive vouchers for $19.99; members of the Florida purchase class with receive vouchers for $10.99; and members of the warranty class will receive vouchers for $8.99. Class members will be exempt from paying shipping or sales tax when they redeem their vouchers, according to the settlement. The court orders Costa to provide the identities and last known addresses of all class members and that each be notified by electronic or first-class mail no later than Sept. 30 that they are a class member in the proposed settlement. A hearing for final approval of the settlement and for plaintiffs' attorney fees, costs and expenses, is scheduled April 21 at the Bryan Simpson U.S. Courthouse in Jacksonville. [GN] COTY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Coty Inc. ("Coty" or the "Company") (NYSE: COTY) between October 3, 2016 and May 28, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased COTY securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Coty Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Coty's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) that despite being no stranger to beauty brand acquisitions, Coty did not have adequate processes and procedures in place to assess and properly value the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics acquisitions; (2) that as a result, Coty had overpaid for the P&G Specialty Beauty Business and Kylie Cosmetics; (3) that Coty did not have adequate infrastructure to smoothly integrate and support the beauty brands that it acquired from P&G, including an adequate supply chain; (4) that, as a result of its inadequate infrastructure, Coty was not successfully integrating the beauty brands it acquired from P&G and not delivering synergies from the acquisition; (5) and that, as a result of the foregoing, Coty's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Coty's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. The truth about the Company's business, operations, and prospects began to emerge. On May 29, 2020, Forbes reported that Kylie Jenner had been "inflating the size and success of her [Kylie Cosmetics] business. For years." - revealing that Defendants had overvalued yet another acquisition. On this news, Coty stock prices fell $0.56, or over 13%, from a close of $4.19 on May 28, 2020 to a close of $3.63 per share on May 29, 2020 on heavy volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 3, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Coty securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cotyinc-coty-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-304/apply or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] DELAWARE: Walls Files Prisoner Rights Suit v. DOC ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bureau Chief of Medical Services. The case is styled as Joseph M. Walls, Michael Emory, Frankie Galindez, Daniel Blaize Delhotal, Mark S. Bednash, Timothy R. Houser, DeAndrae J. Thomas and Philip Davis, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Claire DeMatteis, John Doe, Bureau Chief of Medical Services for the Delaware Department of Corrections Commissioner, Delaware Department of Corrections, Connections Community Services, Previous Delaware Department of Corrections Medical Provider, Centurion Corp. Current Department of Corrections Medical Provider, John and Jane Doe Medical Administrator of Delaware Department of Corrections, Matt Wolford, Dr. Adah and John and Jane Doe Medical Doctors and all Participating Practitioners Involved in the Policy of DOC No Drugs for Pain Management, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01224-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights. The Defendants are government representative and agencies in the United States. The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. EALTHEQUITY INC: Appeal in Suit vs. WageWorks Pending ----------------------------------------------------- HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the appeal related to a consolidated class action suit against WageWorks, Inc. initiated by its common stock purchasers remains pending. On August 30, 2019, HealthEquity, Inc. closed the acquisition of WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), for $51.35 per share in cash, or approximately $2.0 billion to WageWorks stockholders (the "Acquisition"). On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the 'Securities Class Action'). On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against WageWorks, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of WageWorks common stock between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018. The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of its board of directors at the time of that offering. On June 22, 2018 and September 6, 2018, two derivative lawsuits were filed against certain of WageWorks' former officers and directors and WageWorks (as nominal defendant) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The actions were consolidated. On July 23, 2018, a similar derivative lawsuit was filed against certain former WageWorks' officers and directors and WageWorks (as nominal defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (together, the "Derivative Suits"). The allegations in the Derivative Suits relate to substantially the same facts as those underlying the Securities Class Action described above. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and fees and costs. Plaintiffs in the Superior Court action filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 28, 2019, naming as defendants certain former officers and directors of WageWorks and alleging a direct claim of "inseparable fraud/breach of fiduciary duty" on behalf of a class. WageWorks was not named as a party in that complaint. On June 24, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal. HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS.[2] This designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah. EASTMAN KODAK: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 13 Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or the "Company") (NYSE: KODK) between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Kodak Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that the Company had granted Defendant Continenza and several other Company insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options, immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received a $765 million loan from the DFC to produce drugs to treat COVID-19, which Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this material non-public information, Defendant Continenza and other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became public. On August 1, 2020, a Reuters article reported new details of the "unusual" 1.75 million option grant to Continenza. The article stated that according to "a person familiar with the arrangement," the option award "occurred because of an understanding" between Continenza and Kodak's Board of Directors "that had previously neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public." Further, "[t]he decision to grant Continenza options was never formalized or made into a binding agreement, which is why it was not disclosed previously." Concurrently market observers questioned why Kodak, historically a technology company, had been selected for a DPA loan related to pharmaceutical supplies over companies with more experience in the pharmaceutical industry. In reaction to this news, Kodak's stock price plummeted $6.91 per share to close at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020 - a decline of over 34% per share. On August 5, 2020, several Congressional committees sent a joint letter to Defendant Continenza seeking documents about the loan, insider trading, and stock options for their review of "DFC's decision to award this loan to Kodak despite your company's lack of pharmaceutical experience and the windfall gained by you and other company executives as a result of this loan" which raised "questions that must be thoroughly examined." The committees also sent a document request to the DFC's Chief Executive Officer on the same day, inquiring about the Kodak loan, which the letter noted was "an organization that was on the brink of failure in 2012 and was unsuccessful in its previous foray into pharmaceutical manufacturing." On August 7, 2020, after the market closed, the DFC announced, "on July 28, we signed a Letter of Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent allegations of wrongdoing raise serious concerns. We will not proceed any further unless these allegations are cleared." On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%, from $14.88 per share on August 7, 2020, to $10.73 per share on August 10, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 13, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Kodak securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/eastmankodakcompany-kodk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-290/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. [GN] EASTMAN KODAK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 2 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. KODK Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-information-request-form-2?prid=8976&wire=1 AYX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alteryx-inc-information-request-form?prid=8976&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:KODK) KODK Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 27, 2020 - August 11, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eastman-kodak-company-information-request-form-2?prid=8976&wire=1 According to a filed complaint, defendants failed to disclose that the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James Continenza, and several other Company insiders millions of dollars' worth of stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly disclosing that it had received the $765 million loan, which Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in possession of this material non-public information, Continenza and other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became public. Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX) AYX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alteryx-inc-information-request-form?prid=8976&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Alteryx, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter, and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) as a result and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 http://www.zlk.com[GN] ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Dougherty Class Suit in Michigan Continues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. remains a defendant in the "Dougherty" class action suit in Michigan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3, 2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the Company's petition for en banc rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case was returned to the federal district court by mandate from the Sixth Circuit. On December 26, 2018, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the Company filed its amended answer to the amended complaint. The Company said that it is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen entered an order on May 31, 2020, granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and to Appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. ESSA BANCORP: Class Suit vs. Unit Stayed Pending Settlement Talks ------------------------------------------------------------------ A potential class action filed against ESSA Bank & Trust has been stayed while the parties explore the possibility of a negotiated resolution to the case, according to ESSA Bancorp, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as a defendant in an action commenced on December 8, 2016 by one plaintiff who will also seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiff alleges that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks in the process of making loans, in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. In an order dated January 29, 2018, the district court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff appealed the court's ruling. In an opinion and order dated April 26, 2019, the appellate court reversed the district court's order dismissing the plaintiff's case against the Bank, and remanded the case back to the district court in order to continue the litigation. The litigation is now proceeding before the district court. On December 9, 2019, the Court permitted an amendment to the complaint to add two new plaintiffs to the case asserting similar claims. On May 21, 2020, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The case is currently stayed through late-September while the parties explore the possibility of a negotiated resolution to the case. ESSA Bancorp said, "If these discussions are not successful, the Bank will continue to defend against such allegations. To the extent that pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable." ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank & Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. ESSA BANCORP: Unit Faces Potential Class Suit over Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------ ESSA Bank & Trust is defending itself against a potential class action over unearned fees and kickbacks matter related to a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp, Inc., according to ESSA Bancorp's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On May 29, 2020, ESSA Bank & Trust (the Bank) was named as a defendant in an action commenced by three plaintiffs who will seek to pursue this action as a class action on behalf of the entire class of people similarly situated. The plaintiffs allege that a bank previously acquired by ESSA Bancorp received unearned fees and kickbacks from a different title company than the one involved in the previously discussed litigation in the process of making loans. The Complaint alleges violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Sherman Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The litigation is in its early stages, and the Bank's response to the Plaintiffs' Complaint was due August 10. ESSA Bancorp said, "The Bank intends to defend against such allegations. To the extent that pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure to the Bank, the amount of such exposure is not currently estimable." ESSA Bancorp, Inc. operates as the holding company for ESSA Bank & Trust that provides a range of financial services to individuals, families, and businesses in Pennsylvania. ESSA Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1916 and is based in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. EXPEDIA: Sued for Refusing Refunds on Canceled Flights ------------------------------------------------------ Cydney Henderson, Christopher Elliott and Dawn Gilbertson, writing for USA TODAY, report that Expedia has been hit with a class action lawsuit for refusing refunds for flights canceled over the coronavirus outbreak. Daniel Mahoney filed a lawsuit against Expedia after he claims the travel booking service violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by refusing to refund the price of his airline ticket. "Despite its role as middleman or broker in its customers' purchase of air travel on these airlines, Expedia did not intervene or take steps to ensure that its customers were given the right to receive a refund on pandemic cancelled flights," the lawsuit reads. According to the suit, Mahoney said he purchased a $905.08 round-trip ticket on Expedia in December to travel from San Francisco to Milan via TAP Air Portugal in July 2020. In May, after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Expedia notified Mahoney that his flight had been canceled by the airline and offered him only a "voucher" instead of a full refund. "(Mahoney) requested a refund of his purchase for the canceled flight," the suit reads. "The (Expedia) agent said that he would instead receive a voucher for his purchase price for use with American Airlines, valid until December 31, 2020. The agent indicated that the airline would not provide a refund." Mahoney said he spoke to numerous Expedia agents, including a supervisor who said "my hands are tied" in providing a full refund. Mahoney said he received a travel credit. "During this unprecedented global health and economic crisis, consumers' need for refunds over travel vouchers is pressing," the lawsuit reads. "Travel vouchers provide little security in this crisis, particularly where many individuals need money now to pay for basics like food and rent." The class action lawsuit claims Expedia violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by using "unfair or deceptive practices in trade or commerce." Mahoney and the class members are seeking monetary damages and treble damages. Suing an airline seems to be the new American pastime. Since the pandemic started, passengers have taken all of the legacy carriers to court, alleging they failed to refund their tickets as required by law. In April, a passenger in Chicago sued United Airlines for refusing to issue refunds for a canceled flight despite "being entitled to a refund if the airline canceled a flight regardless of the reason." A few days later, another passenger filed a lawsuit against Delta Air Lines, accusing the carrier of acting in a "deceptive and unfair manner" in failing to honor ticket refunds and requests from its passengers after the outbreak. Less than a week after that, the same law firm took American Airlines to court, alleging it forced customers into a rebooked flight or travel voucher instead of returning their money. After receiving more than 25,000 traveler complaints about airline ticket refunds in March and April, the U.S. Department of Transportation warned airlines that they were required to provide a refund to travelers if their flight was canceled or significantly changed by the airline in May. [GN] EXTENDED STAY: 6 Class Suits Pending in California at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Extended Stay America, Inc. is facing six purported class action lawsuits in California as of June 30, 2020, alleging, among other things, failure to provide meal and rest periods, wage and hour violations and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The complaints seek, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuits, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. With respect to the Fair Credit Reporting Act violations alleged in the lawsuits, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement in May 2019, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval. During the three months ended June 30, 2019, the Company recorded a payable and a corresponding insurance receivable for the amount of the tentative settlement. The expected resolution of the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations in the lawsuits did not have, and is not expected to have, a material adverse impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results of operations or liquidity. With respect to the meal and rest period and the wage and hour violations alleged in the lawsuits, excluding the one lawsuit, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement in January 2020, which is subject to certain conditions, including court approval. During the three months ended December 31, 2019, the Company incurred a loss and recorded a charge equal to the amount of the tentative settlement. The expected resolution of the alleged meal and rest period and wage and hour violations in the lawsuits did not have, and is not expected to have, a material adverse impact on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results of operations or liquidity. The Company said, "With respect to one lawsuit, although the Company believes it is reasonably possible that it may incur losses associated with such matter, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution based on the early stage of the lawsuit, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or classes and the size of any certified class, if applicable, and the lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues. However, depending on the amount and timing, an unfavorable resolution of the lawsuit or a change in the Company's assessment of the likelihood of loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results of operations or liquidity in a future period. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and is prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit." Extended Stay America, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and manages hotels in the United States. The company also relicenses Extended Stay America brand to third party franchisees. Extended Stay America, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. FASTLY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or "the Company") (NYSE: FSLY) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fastly securities between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fsly. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) consequently, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/fsly or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Fastly you have until October 26, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] FASTLY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) of the October 26, 2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you invested in Fastly stock or options between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/FSLY. There is no cost or obligation to you. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Richard Gonnello, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 (212) 983-9330 E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all those who purchased Fastly securities between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case, Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc. et al, No. 20-cv-06024 was filed on August 27, 2020. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Specifically, on August 5, 2020, after market close, the Company hosted an earnings call for its Q2 2020 results. On the call, Company CEO Joshua Bixby revealed for the first time that "ByteDance, the operator of TikTok[,] was our largest customer in the quarter." Bixby also suggested on the call that ByteDance was a significant customer in Q1 as well, stating that "over the last six months, [TikTok] represents just about 12% of revenue, trailing 6 months ending June 30." On this news, Fastly's stock fell from a closing price of $108.92 per share on August 5, 2020 to $89.64 per share on August 6, 2020-a $19.28 or 17.70% drop. That same day, August 6, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order that would take effect in 45 days and prohibit any U.S. company or person from transacting with ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company. On this news, Fastly's shares continued to decline, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. [GN] FASTLY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 26 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Fastly between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fastly investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Fastly during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 26, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] FASTLY INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of October 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) securities during the period from May 6, 2020 through August 5, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until October 26, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter ("Q2") 2020 earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest customer in Q2 2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020. This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed by the Chinese government. On July 31, 2020, President Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national security concerns. As Fastly's Chief Executive Officer admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any ban of the TikTok app by the US would create uncertainty around our ability to support this customer[,]" and "the loss of this customer's traffic would have an impact on our business." On this news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28, or approximately 17.7%, from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020. Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on August 7, 2020. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a result, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you acquired Fastly securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] FASTLY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 26 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Fastly, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Fastly, Inc. (NYSE:FSLY) FSLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 6, 2020 - August 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 26, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fastly-inc-information-request-form?prid=9199&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fastly, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FENC) between February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased FENC securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Fennec Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Fennec's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 11, 2020, before the market opened, Fennec disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec's] drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of PEDMARK." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020, thereby injuring investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Fennec securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fennecpharmaceuticalsinc-fenc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-305/apply or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP Tel No: (877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Fennec Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC) Class Period: February 11, 2020 to August 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020 Fennec is a biopharmaceutical company that purportedly focuses on the development of PEDMARK, a sodium thiosulfate anhydrous injection, for the prevention of platinum-induced ototoxicity in pediatric cancer patients. On August 11, 2020, Fennec disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's New Drug Application for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec's] drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of PEDMARK." On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020. The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Fennec class action go to: https://bespc.com/FENC About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Portnoy Law Alerts of Class Action Filing ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Fennec" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FENC) investors that acquired securities between February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email to join the case. Before the market opened, on August 11, 2020, Fennec disclosed that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in regards to the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for PEDMARK. According to the CRL, "after recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facility of [Fennec's] drug product manufacturer, the FDA identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to the approval of PEDMARK." The Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, on this news, to close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially misleading and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects that were materially adverse. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that PEDMARK's manufacturing facilities, the Company's sole product candidate, was not in compliance with current good manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, PEDMARK's regulatory approval was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) that, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as a result of the foregoing. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss or Stay Allred Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss or stay the class action suit initiated by Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred remains pending, according to Fidelity National Financial, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain, Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Chicago Title Insurance Company is one of the company's title insurance underwriters. Plaintiffs seek class certification and consequential, treble, and punitive damages. The Named Companies are defending and have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, or alternatively, to stay the case. Fidelity National Financial, Inc., incorporated on May 24, 2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville, Florida. FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Dubose Alleges Violation under FCRA ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. The case is styled as Alvia Dubose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03841-CAP-WEJ (N.D. Ga., Sept. 16, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Flagstar Bank is a bank headquartered in Michigan. It is the primary subsidiary of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., a bank holding company. It is one of the largest residential mortgage servicers and is on the list of largest banks in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Weiner, Esq. Weiner & Sand LLC 800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (404) 254-0842 Email: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com - and - Jeffrey Sand, Esq. Weiner & Sand LLC 800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (404) 205-5029 Fax: (866) 800-1482 Email: js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Court Denies Compelling Arbitration in Berman ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Bell Flynn, Esq. -- virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- Brooke Conkle, Esq. -- brooke.conkle@troutman.com -- Chad Fuller, Esq., Troy Jenkins, Esq., and Alan Wingfield, Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in an article for JDSupra, report that on September 1, 2020, a district court in the Northern District of California weighed in on an issue of recurring importance in internet commerce: how does a business obtain a remote consumer's effective agreement to terms and conditions including arbitration provisions? The answer in this case was cautionary. In denying a motion to compel arbitration brought by a defendant in a putative class action, the court focused on the typography, location and the affirmative consent (or lack thereof) of the consumer to an arbitration provision presented by hyperlink. In Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, plaintiffs Daniel Berman, Stephanie Hernandez, and Erica Russell contended that they received telemarketing text messages and prerecorded calls from two vendors promoting the services of Freedom Financial Network and Freedom Debt Relief. One of the vendors obtained leads for the text message campaign through web submissions from consumer-facing websites. The defendant contended that two of the putative class plaintiffs' claims were subject to arbitration based on the applicable terms and conditions of the web submissions. The arbitration clause was presented to the consumer by way of hyperlink on websites; the court faulted this approach in multiple ways, noting the lack of: * specific, affirmative means of indicating consent to the terms and conditions or arbitration clause; * text notifying users that they would be deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions; * a "tickbox" or "I agree" button for the terms and conditions; * an indication that the click-thru or "continue" button signified to consumers that they were assenting to the terms and conditions; and * clear presentation of the hyperlink itself, as the formatting of the terms and conditions, including the monotone of the terms and conditions, as compared to the "more colorful and high-contrast fonts" on the rest of the webpage; and due to the font size of the terms and conditions, which was "exceedingly small," in contrast to the other type sizes. The bottom line is that this court was looking for a conspicuous presentation of the hyperlink itself, including a warning that the terms and conditions found through the website contained an arbitration clause; and a statement closely and obviously associated with the "continue" button that by clicking the button the consumer was assenting to the terms and conditions, including the arbitration clause. This case joins a growing body of recent case law addressing how agreements including as to arbitration clauses are effectively formed through use of hyperlinks on websites. Companies who want to collect consumer agreements through consumer experiences on websites need to be aware of the fairly specific holdings of various courts that bear upon the location, typography, and wording used to try to form agreements by hyperlinks. [GN] FTS INTERNATIONAL: Wants IPO Class Suit Moved to Bankruptcy Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Motion to Transfer Venue to Bankruptcy Court has been filed in the class action suit initiated by Carol Glock, according to FTS International, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of the Company's officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common stock ("IPO"). The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock in or traceable to the Company's IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, damages in an amount in excess of US$1.0 million, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. FTSI's original Special Exceptions were granted on August 16, 2019. Plaintiff amended its petition on September 16, 2019 and Defendants filed their Special Exceptions, which were denied on November 22, 2019. FTSI appealed this ruling to the Dallas Court of Appeals and subsequently to the Texas Supreme Court. Plaintiff filed notices of dismissal against the Chesapeake entities on June 18, 2020. The Chesapeake entities filed for bankruptcy on June 28, 2020 in the Southern District of Texas. Defendants filed notice of removal from State Court to Bankruptcy Court in the Northern District of Texas on July 6, 2020 on the basis of Chesapeake's bankruptcy. Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas, and the Bankruptcy Court was scheduled to hear this Motion on August 25, 2020. The Company said, "FTSI has insurance coverage on this matter, but several of FTSI's co-defendants have tendered requests for indemnification that are not covered by FTSI's insurance. FTSI has agreed to indemnify the IPO underwriter co-defendants. While the outcome of this case is uncertain, we do not expect the ultimate resolution of this case to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements." FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies (E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. GENIUS BRANDS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of October 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein") on Sept. 1 disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders of Genius Brands International, Inc. ("Genius Brands" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GNUS) who purchased or otherwise acquired Genius Brands securities between March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of Genius Brands International, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of Genius Brands International, Inc., you may, no later than October 19, 2020, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading and/or failed to disclose that material adverse regarding the launch of the Kartoon Channel! app. The lawsuit continues to allege that Genius Brands made false and misleading statements about Nickelodeon's claimed broadcast expansion of Genius Brands' Rainbow Rangers cartoon, as well as its growth potential and overall prospects as a company. On June 5, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "A Bagholder's Guide to Why We Think Genius Brands Will Be a $1.50 Stock Within a Month" (the "Hindenburg Report"). The Hindenburg Report questioned the Company's actual value, noting that contrary to Genius's representations, the Company's highly-touted cartoon property "Rainbow Rangers" was airing only nine times per week, rather than 26 times as Genius had previously represented, and at unfavorable time slots. On July 2, 2020, Genius issued a press release touting the announcement of a purported "Key Business Development" on July 6, 2020. However, the July 6, 2020 announcement merely touted the creation of a joint venture with POW! Entertainment regarding intellectual property that was created by Stan Lee after his tenure at Marvel Entertainment. On this underwhelming news, Genius's stock price fell $0.89 per share, or 25.07%, to close at $2.66 per share on July 6, 2020. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. http://www.whafh.com[GN] GNC HOLDINGS: No Trial Schedule Set for Naranjo Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a trial date has been scheduled yet in the class action initiated by Elizabeth Naranjo. On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and legal fees are sought. In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion for Decertification. In August 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the class action claims alleging overtime violations. In November 2019, GNC filed a renewed Motion for Decertification, which was denied by the Court in January 2020. There is no trial date currently scheduled. GNC Holdings said, "As of June 30, 2020, an immaterial liability has been accrued in the accompanying financial statements. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the remaining class action claims asserted in this action." GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends Suit over Fluctuating Workweek Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- GNC Holdings, Inc. continues to face the class action related to Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and the case has been remanded to the trial court for final resolution. On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek" method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were paid according to the fluctuating workweek method. In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA. In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial amount in legal fees. The Company appealed the adverse judgment and the award of attorney's fees. On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to determine the amount of overtime owed. Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27, 2018. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of Plaintiffs. The case has been remanded to the trial court for final resolution. GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products. The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. GOGO INC: Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint in Pierrelouis Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the Court has granted the plaintiffs' request for leave to file a proposed third amendment complaint in the putative class action styled, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc. On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate to the Company's 2Ku antenna's reliability and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint. In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity that defendants acted with scienter. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and in December 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In February 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss such second amended complaint. In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a proposed third amendment complaint, which was granted by the Court. The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to file a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint and to continue to defend the claims vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses." Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation industry in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA), Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation (BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. GOOGLE INC: Class Action Lawyers Want Consultant's Fee Suit Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class action lawyers accused of shortchanging their key consultant in a $22 million case say his case should be dismissed. Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O'Neil filed their motion to dismiss Sept. 8 in Florida federal court in the lawsuit brought by Stephen Arpaia, who is upset he was only paid $310,000 from a multimillion-dollar settlement with Google. That was much lower than what was requested by lawyers, and what they requested was much lower than what Arpaia felt he was owed. A short six-page motion asks that all four of his claims be dismissed, claiming that his fraud suit is just a fee dispute. Arpaiao alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and fraud. "Plaintiff repeatedly refers to a written contract or agreement in… his (first amended complaint)," the motion says. "There can be no unjust enrichment when there is an express contract between the parties. Clearly, then, a complaint cannot allege an express agreement in a claim for unjust enrichment." Arpaia's work helped establish a proper class to be reimbursed after plaintiffs alleged Google dumped their advertising on low-quality websites without telling them it would happen. Arpaia was hired by the Foote firm for consulting services and performed work for Schubert, Jonekheer & Koibe when it became lead counsel. Arpaia says he spent more than 1,000 hours on the case in a two-year span. But he watched as what was submitted to the court for approval cut both his hourly fee and the amount of hours he worked, the lawsuit says. What was submitted asked for Arpaia to be paid more than $516,000 -- for 688.1 hours at $750 per. But in September 2017, Arpaia received a check in the mail for only $310,000 for his work. He claims this violated his agreement with the Foote firm that said he would be paid the greater of 10% of attorneys fees ($607,500) or 5% of the first 50% of all attorneys fees, plus Arpaia's lodestar ($667,950). Or, he asks the court, he should be paid for all of his 1,089 hours at $750 per ($817,424). "Arpaia claims there was an express agreement with defendant for his compensation," the motion to dismiss says. "In Count IV, Arpaia alleges he was fraudulently induced to work on the Adworks case. A party cannot recover in fraud for alleged oral misrepresentations that are adequately covered or expressly contradicted in a later written contract." [GN] GOOGLE: Must Face AdWords California Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Holly Barker, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Google will have to face claims under California's false advertising and unfair competition laws over its online advertising program AdWords, after the Ninth Circuit overruled a district court decision granting the tech behemoth's motion to dismiss on Sept. 1. "The district court applied too stringent of a pleading standard," the court said, concluding that plaintiff Gurminder Singh adequately alleged economic injury. Singh, who began using Google AdWords to run his ad campaigns in 2008, alleged that he hired a consultant after noticing that Google's filter for fraudulent clicks may be less effective than it claimed, and that the consultant confirmed his suspicions. [GN] HD SUPPLY: Settlement in Ga. Stockholders' Suit Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------- HD Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2020, that the Court has approved the settlement in a stockholders litigation on a final basis. On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, stockholders filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior members of its management made certain false or misleading public statements in violation of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive (the "original securities complaints"). Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the securities litigation defendants on behalf of all persons other than the securities litigation defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. The Amended Complaint alleges that the securities litigation defendants made certain false or misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the securities litigation defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the securities litigation defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 30, 2020, the parties executed a written stipulation and agreement to settle the litigation for a payment of $50 million, subject to court approval. On July 21, 2020, the Court approved the settlement on a final basis. The settlement is without any admission of the allegations in the complaints, and the full settlement amount is covered under the Company's insurance policies. HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply Holdings, Inc. HDFC BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of HDFC Bank Limited. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. HDFC Bank Limited (NYSE: HDB) Class Period: July 31, 2019 to July 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020 HDFC Bank was founded in 1994 and is based in Mumbai, India. The Bank provides various banking and financial services to individuals and businesses in India, Bahrain, Hong Kong, and Dubai. HDFC Bank operates in Treasury, Retail Banking, Wholesale Banking, Other Banking Business, and Unallocated segments, offering, among other services, various types of loans to millions of its retail borrowers, including personal and vehicle financing loans. Revenues generated from HDFC Bank's auto and commercial vehicle loans are reported as part of the Bank's Retail Banking segment. On July 13, 2020, The Economic Times published an article titled "HDFC Bank probes lending practices at vehicle unit." That article reported that HDFC Bank had "conducted a probe into allegations of improper lending practices and conflicts of interests in its vehicle-financing operations involving the unit's former head." On this news, HDFC Bank's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at $47.02 per share on July 13, 2020 The complaint, filed on September 3, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Bank's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations; (iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation; and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Motion for Class Status Due in February 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the class action suit initiated by Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.'s former customer in Connecticut against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.'s Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, has until February 17, 2021 to file its motion for class certification, according to Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020. The Company said, "Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff." Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Set Aside Judgment Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiffs' motion to set aside the Court's March 2020 judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint in the class action suit in New York entitled, Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. Separately, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v. Pruzanski et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case. On December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases, including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC") and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and Canada. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Agrees to $37.5MM Deals in Two Virginia Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Biz Journals reports that a Charlotte-based window and door manufacturer has reached settlement agreements for two claims in federal court. Jeld-Wen Holding Inc. (NYSE: JELD) has agreed to settle two class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, according to a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Should the agreements receive court approval, Jeld-Wen will pay out $37.75 million to settle the suits. The first is a settlement with Grubb Lumber Co. and Philadelphia Reserve Supply Co., which led the suit. The companies and several other direct purchasers allege that Jeld-Wen and co-defendant Masonite Corp. participated in a price-fixing scheme on interior-molded doors. The suit was filed in 2018. On Aug. 31 of this year, Jeld-Wen and Masonite agreed to each pay out $28 million to the class of direct purchasers to settle the case, the SEC filing shows. The second agreement was a settlement with a class of indirect purchasers, which also filed suit in 2018. Jeld-Wen and Masonite agreed on Sept. 4 to pay out $9.75 million each to settle the case, according to the SEC filing. "In both cases, JELD-WEN denies the claims asserted in the lawsuits," the company said in a statement to the Charlotte Business Journal. "We have never coordinated pricing with Masonite and have not violated the antitrust laws. We, along with Masonite, agreed to settle these matters to avoid further litigation costs." These suits are not the only ones alleging a price-fixing scheme by Jeld-Wen. In February, investors filed a class-action suit regarding the matter, this one led by Massachusetts-based Cambridge Retirement System. That suit was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. It alleges current and former Jeld-Wen executives participated in a price-fixing conspiracy, made misleading claims about the competitive nature of Jeld-Wen's business and made false statements which led to Jeld-Wen stock trading at inflated prices. In a statement to CBJ in February, Jeld-Wen called the suit "opportunistic" and "without merit." In the first quarter of 2020, Jeld-Wen reported a net loss of $200,000 after reporting legal costs for the quarter of $11.7 million. In addition to the class-action suits, Jeld-Wen has been locked in a legal battle for years with Steves & Sons Inc., a San Antonio, Texas-based door manufacturer. In 2018, Steves & Sons claimed victory in an antitrust suit against Jeld-Wen, a ruling which Jeld-Wen has appealed. The Texas manufacturer also filed a new antitrust suit against Jeld-Wen in February, alleging a breach of contract. A federal judge filed a preliminary injunction on April 10 to order Jeld-Wen to supply door skins to Steves & Sons. During Jeld-Wen's second-quarter earnings call last month, CEO Gary Michel provided an update on the Steves & Sons litigation. He said the court's decision in the breach-of-contract case is expected later this year, while a settlement had been reached in all previous suits between the two companies. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Judge Tosses PPP Agents' Consolidated Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ On September 21, 2020, in the second decision on a motion to dismiss in cases brought by "agents" seeking fees from lenders for allegedly helping small business borrowers obtain loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), Judge Rakoff in the Southern District of New York granted defendants' motions to dismiss in six consolidated actions brought by putative agents against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Citibank, N.A., Signature Bank, and MUFG Union Bank, N.A. See Johnson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv04100-JRS, 2020 WL 5608683 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (lead case). As to the "central legal question" of "whether the PPP entitles plaintiffs to some portion of the fees paid by the federal government to the defendant banks . . . where plaintiffs allegedly assisted borrowers in securing the loans but had no agreements with the banks," Judge Rakoff held that the PPP does not. Consistent with the SBA's long-standing regulatory requirement that an agent execute a compensation agreement governing services provided in connection with an SBA loan application, Judge Rakoff concluded that neither the CARES Act nor the implementing regulations "create an independent entitlement for agent fees; rather [they] simply impose[] a limit on the amount of fees an agent is permitted to collect in the event of an agreement for agent fees." Judge Rakoff dismissed plaintiffs' common law claims for the same reason, and dismissed plaintiffs' state statutory claims for failure to plead the requisite elements. Furthermore, and in the alternative, Judge Rakoff held that the CARES Act does not provide a private right of action, and thus plaintiffs could not bring a claim for declaratory judgment based on a violation of the CARES Act or related regulations. Lastly, Judge Rakoff dismissed claims against two defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege standing. About Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is a global law firm that advises on major domestic and cross-border M&A, finance, corporate and real estate transactions, significant litigation and corporate investigations, and complex restructuring, regulatory, tax and estate planning matters. Founded in 1879, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has more than 875 lawyers on four continents, with four offices in the United States, including its headquarters in New York, four offices in Europe, two in Australia and three in Asia. JUMPSPORT INC: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Jumpsport, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jumpsport, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07571 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 15, 2020). JumpSport, Inc. is a manufacturer of recreational trampolines and accessories that are distributed worldwide. JumpSport markets and sells a patented trampoline safety net enclosure which was invented by one of the company's founders, Mark Publicover.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: nyjg@aol.com JUST BORN: Nov. 10 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- The Penny Hoarder reports that allegations of overpriced medications, prematurely peeling auto paint, a data breach and even more unwanted text messages are part of this month's highlighted class-action settlements. Read on to see if you qualify to receive a portion of any of the following settlements before the deadlines pass. Mike and Ike and Hot Tamales: Packaging Just Born, the maker of Mike and Ike and Hot Tamales, has agreed to a $3.3 million class-action settlement regarding allegations of deceptive packaging. Plaintiffs alleged the size of the boxes led them to believe they were getting more candy than was actually provided. If you bought one or more cardboard boxes of Mike and Ike and/or Hot Tamales candies between Feb. 3, 2013 and July 23, 2020, you could be eligible for either a cash payment or vouchers for free candy. Vouchers will be good for one free box of Mike and Ike or Hot Tamales candies for every two boxes purchased for a maximum of eight free boxes of candy. Eligible class members may instead choose to receive about $0.50 per purchased product, but the cash payments may be adjusted depending upon the number of valid claims received. Get a taste of this class-action settlement by submitting your valid claim by Nov. 10, 2020. Nissan and Infiniti: White Paint Peeling If you own a white-painted Nissan Rogue or INFINITI QX56 vehicle, you could be eligible for extended warranty coverage or reimbursement if you paid to have your vehicle repainted. The vehicles covered under this class-action settlement are white-painted Nissan Rogues made between Jan. 11, 2013 and April 23, 2013 and white-painted INFINITI QX56s made between Nov. 20, 2009 and Dec. 12, 2012. Owners of these vehicles claimed the paint was defective, which resulted in the paint fading and peeling. Plaintiffs say the paint's premature failure caused them to pay out-of-pocket to repaint the vehicles. Nissan has not admitted to any wrongdoing, but agreed to the class-action settlement, which will allow class members to have repainting costs covered under a four-year extended warranty. Class members who bring a covered vehicle to an authorized dealer will have some of the repainting costs covered by Nissan, which is offering 90% of repaint cost coverage for the first two years of the warranty, and 70% repaint cost coverage for the final two years of the warranty. Compensation and coverage payments are limited to $400 for Nissan Rogue repaints and $600 for INFINITI QX56 repaints. Submit your valid claim by the Jan. 10, 2021 deadline, but be sure to check the details first. Suboxone: Trade Practices You could benefit from a $60 million settlement regarding alleged trade violations committed by the maker of opioid addiction medication Suboxone. The Federal Trade Commission accused Indivior Inc. and its subsidiary Reckitt Benckiser Group of stopping a cheaper generic version of Suboxone from competing with its sales of the brand-name tablets. Right before a generic version of the pill was released, Reckitt Benckiser Group began marketing its Suboxone Film as being "less susceptible to accidental pediatric exposure than Suboxone Tablets." The anticompetition lawsuit alleged the claim was misleading and designed to compel consumers to choose the more expensive brand-name Film over the less expensive generic tablets. By essentially squelching the competition's business opportunity through improper business practices, Reckitt Benckiser Group allegedly violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, said the lawsuit. Class members include U.S. patients who were prescribed Suboxone Film between March 1, 2013 and Feb. 28, 2019. The amount of the potential award will depend upon how long the consumer took Suboxone and how many valid claims are submitted overall. Submit your valid claim form by the Dec. 1, 2020 deadline. Google+: Data Breach If you used the Google+ social networking platform, you could benefit from a portion of a $7.5 million class-action settlement regarding allegations that users' private profile information was exposed to third party app developers. Google pulled the plug on Google+ in April 2019, but before the platform was shut down, plaintiffs say their names, email addresses, interests, relationships, photos and hometowns were shared through a large data breach. Class members include those who had Google+ accounts between Jan. 1, 2015 and April 2, 2019, as that was the time when users' personal information was exposed due to "software bugs" announced on Oct. 18, 2018 and Dec. 10, 2018. Google was accused of reporting that only 500,000 users were affected over a two-week period, but the lawsuit says the data breach actually took place over nearly three years, which means many more users were likely compromised due to Google's alleged "calculated business decision" to hide the breach from users and the public. Class members who file valid claims will receive a pro rata share of the fund, starting with up to a $5 payment, but if settlement funds remain after the initial payout, an additional distribution of up to $12 (total) will be paid. A valid claim form must be filed by Oct. 8, 2020. Freedom Boat Club: Unwanted Text Messages Freedom Boat Club has agreed to settle allegations the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unwanted text messages. A nearly $1 million settlement agreement will benefit consumers who received an unsolicited text either from or on behalf of Freedom Boat Club between March 26, 2015 and June 25, 2020. The complaint says the TCPA requires companies to obtain express prior consent from cell phone users in order to legally send telemarketing text messages through an autodialing system, which the Freedom Boat Club allegedly failed to do. Freedom Boat Club denies the allegations, but all parties agreed to settle the lawsuit to avoid continued costs and risks associated with further litigation. Exact amounts of potential benefits to each class member is unknown, but is said to be around $7.25 and reportedly will not exceed $10.50 per class member. Paddle on over to this link for complete details and to file a valid claim by Oct. 5, 2020. Five Below: Data Breach Discount merchandise website Five Below has agreed to a $112,000 class-action settlement regarding claims the website suffered several data breaches in 2018 and 2019. Class members include consumers who made a credit or debit card purchase on the Five Below website on Aug. 14, 2018; Aug. 28, 2018; from approximately Sept. 18, 2018 through Sept. 19, 2018; and from Nov. 13, 2018 through Jan. 11, 2019. Plaintiffs say the company failed to protect their information from unauthorized access, which placed them at risk for fraud. Some plaintiffs say they incurred financial injury. Five Below admitted no wrongdoing, but agreed to settle the claims against them. Class members are eligible for payments of up to $250 to reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses and lost time incurred as a result of the data breaches. The lost time is available at $20 per hour with a limit of five hours documented lost time, or three hours undocumented time if class members experienced fraudulent charges. An additional $22 payment may be paid for each credit or debit card on which documented fraudulent transactions were made as a result of the security failure. See the complete details on covered expenses and instructions on submitting a claim form by the Oct. 9, 2020 deadline. Thalomid and Revlimid: Price Fixing You may be eligible for a portion of a $34 million class-action settlement involving allegations that drug maker Celgene conducted a price-fixing scheme to increase the cost of cancer drugs Thalomid and Revlimid. Patients and third parties who paid for Thalomid or Revlimid in certain states could qualify as class members if the purchases were made any time prior to May 20, 2020. The covered states include: * California * District of Columbia * Florida * Kansas * Maine * Massachusetts * Michigan * Nebraska * New York * North Carolina * Oregon * Pennsylvania * Rhode Island * Tennessee Cancer patients, their families and insurers filed the Celgene class-action lawsuit alleging the drug company conspired to prevent less expensive, generic versions of Thalomid and Revlimid from reaching the market in order to continue greater profits from the brand versions. As a result, the plaintiffs say they paid more for the drugs than they otherwise would have had to pay. Celgene denies any wrongdoing, but agreed to settle the multidistrict litigation to avoid the continued costs and risks of litigation. Class members will be eligible to receive a proportional amount of the settlement fund after attorneys' fees are paid from it; separate claim forms exist for consumers and third-party payors. The amount of the potential award is currently unknown. Find the complete details and instructions on submitting a claim by the Oct. 15, 2020 deadline. [GN] KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces New Securities Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- A putative securities class action filed in June 2020 in California federal court against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and officers remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. According to the Company, the June 2020 class action is similar to the class actions filed beginning 2017 in California and New York that were dismissed in September 2019. Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. ("Kandi") and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal has run. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures electric vehicle ("EV") products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in the Chinese and the global markets. The Company conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd., Kandi Vehicles' wholly and partially-owned subsidiaries, and SC Autosports LLC ("SC Autosports", d/b/a Kandi America). The Company is based in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China. KILOO: Plaintiffs Seek Court Nod on Child Privacy Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie A. Prescott, Esq. -- NPrescott@mintz.com -- of Mintz, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the plaintiffs in three related children's privacy class actions sought preliminary approval of proposed settlements with sixteen defendants in those coordinated actions. The matters -- known as the Kiloo Action, the Disney Action, and the Viacom Action -- are pending in the Northern District of California, case numbers 3:17-CV-04344-JD; 3:17-CV-4419-JD; 3:17-CV-4492-JD. The motion was to be heard on September 10, 2020. The district court will have to decide whether to approve these settlements, which seek equitable relief and no damages, and which may have significant implications on the mobile app providers that cater or appeal to children. The proposed settlements address children's personal data, as defined by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ("COPPA") Rule, 16 C.F.R. Section 312.2. They aim to provide protections that exceed existing regulatory requirements relating to the collection, use, and monetization of children's personal data. The settlements seek sweeping changes and conduct from defendants and also from non-parties. Specifically, some of these mandates -- if approved by the court -- will apply not only in the apps identified in the lawsuits but also in thousands of other child-directed and mixed-audience apps. The proposed settlements seek to resolve children's privacy claims on the eve of briefing class certification and following three years of highly contested litigation, substantial motion practice, and vigorous fact and expert discovery. Privacy class actions are notoriously expensive, and these coordinated actions are no exception. The plaintiffs are requesting over $9 million in attorneys' fees and costs for their work to date. In these three cases, Plaintiffs ultimately were allowed to proceed on the following claims: (1) intrusion upon seclusion and claims under the California Constitutional Right to Privacy in all three actions; (2) a claim under the New York General Business Law, Section 349, in the Kiloo and Disney matters, and (3) claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and Massachusetts's statutory right to privacy in the Disney Action. According to the motion, the claims asserted in these actions are admittedly "novel," and based on issues and law "still undeveloped," including "the extent to which the personal data collected from Plaintiffs' devices constitutes ‘children's personal data,' and whether Defendants' conduct is considered ‘highly offensive' to a reasonable person (particularly in light of the unique nature of each Defendant's data collection practices), whether Defendants engaged in any ‘deceptive' or ‘misleading' business practices, and whether Plaintiffs have suffered sufficient injury." The proposed settlements promise to resolve all these claims and to provide stringent privacy protections beyond the current federal limitations on how children's personal data may be collected and used. What is striking is that the settlement may impact not only the defendants but many other businesses that were not a part of these lawsuits. What further makes this proposed settlement notable is the fact that the class plaintiffs are not seeking any damages (aside from the nominal amounts for the named plaintiffs). Rather, they seek only injunctive relief -- which is simultaneously a victory for plaintiffs and somewhat of a windfall for defendants. The use of class actions to seek only injunctive or declaratory relief is infrequent. The proposed settlements can therefore be viewed as a victory for both sides because the plaintiffs are not waiving their individual damages claims and are set to receive significant privacy safeguards in the future. At the same time, however, the defendants recognize that future individual lawsuits for damages are unlikely, and this settlement can bring finality to a long and protracted litigation, without significant payments to the class members. These proposed settlements promise to provide far-reaching injunctive relief for class members, not only with respect to the gaming apps at issue in these lawsuits but also across thousands of apps embedded with the defendants' technology. All in all, the settlements thus extend to thousands of other apps (namely, over 16,000 unique apps and over 63,000 app versions). Specifically, they place strict limitations on child-directed apps so that only contextual advertising is served to children under thirteen. They have three common components: (1) a prohibition on behavioral advertising to children; (2) a limitation on advertising services to contextual advertising for children under thirteen; and (3) enrollment-process requirements for app developers aimed at educating and enabling them to screen apps for child-directed content. Under the settlement terms, the defendants and others will no longer be able to track children over time and across apps for commercial purposes. Additionally, the settlement will protect children from advertising that is based on any of their past online activities or on any of their previously collected data -- regardless of whether it was collected in the subject app or anywhere else online. The defendants and others also will not be able to use the children's personal data collected from a current app session in any manner that further targets a specific user in future sessions in the same app, across other apps, or elsewhere online. If approved, the settlements will necessitate business practices that, in some cases, exceed prevailing industry standards and federal requirements. Finally, the bulk of the injunctive relief obtained through these settlements will apply industry-wide and will extend to thousands of apps that are popular with children. Injunction-only class actions are less common. Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to certify a class action in cases in which "final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Yet most class actions typically focus on damages, and most class action settlements ultimately offer class members both compensatory and injunctive relief. Previously, plaintiffs bringing cases seeking equitable relief did so in consumer fraud, civil rights, and product liability medical-monitoring cases. A new trend may be emerging, however, making such actions especially attractive in privacy class actions where damages are difficult to prove or may defeat class-action prerequisites. Additionally, since the U.S. Supreme Court has tightened the certification requirements in class actions seeking damages, and since injunctive relief cases do not center on predominance or superiority, an injunctive class is easier to certify and is therefore a more attractive option in privacy cases. Another useful feature of injunction-only class actions is that they do not require notice to the class—the single biggest procedural impediment to class certification, as well as an expensive tool. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 362 (2011). Thus notice was not required in the Kiloo Action, the Disney Action, and the Viacom Action. The parties, nevertheless, agreed to provide notice to the settlement classes in accordance with an agreed-upon (presumably, less costly) plan. [GN] LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of investors that purchased LexinFintech Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) securities between April 30, 2019 and August 4, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 9, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On August 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report describing, among other things, how the Company: (i) reports artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (ii) has a business model that exposes shareholders to enormous losses; (iii) was still conducting direct peer to peer lending despite claiming otherwise, (iv) lacked internal controls; and (v) conducted undisclosed related party transactions. On this news, shares of LexinFintech stock fell $0.47 per share or 5.52% to close at $8.04 per share on August 25, 2020 The complaint, filed on September 9, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the Company's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you purchased LexinFintech securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion Passmore, or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 9 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LexinFintech investors under the federal securities laws. To join the LexinFintech class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the Company's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1936.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) between April 30, 2019 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LexinFintech investors under the federal securities laws. To join the LexinFintech class action, go to [url="]http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosenlegal.com%2Fcases-register-1936.html[/url] or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LexinFintech reported artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (2) the Company's business model exposes shareholders to enormous losses by prioritizing Chinese lenders for off-balance sheet loans; (3) the Company exaggerated its user base; (4) the Company was facilitating direct peer to peer lending contrary to Chinese law; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 9, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to [url="]http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosenlegal.com%2Fcases-register-1936.html[/url] or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN] LHC GROUP: Class Status Sought for Farmer and Moore Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as SHANA FARMER and KYNA MOORE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, vs. LHC GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-03838-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this case as an Fair Labor Standards Act collective action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of FLSA claims is sent by United States Mail and e-mail to: "all current and former Ohio hourly employees of the Defendant who have: (1) provided companionship services, domestic services, home care, and/or other in-home services; (2) traveled to multiple clients' homes in the same day; and (3) worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweeks during the three years preceding the filing of this Motion and continuing through the final disposition of this case"; 3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms; 4. directing the Defendant to provide, within 14 days of an order granting conditional certification, a roster of all persons who fit the definition (the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs) that includes their full names, their dates of employment, job titles, their last known home addresses, phone numbers, and their personal email addresses; and 5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to Join forms be sent to such present and former employees within 14 days of receipt of the roster using the Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs' mailing and email addresses. This case involves the Defendant's travel time policy and/or practice. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant fails to pay its hourly, non-exempt employees for time they spend traveling between the Defendant's clients' residences. The Defendant's policy and/or practice deprives the Defendant's hourly, non-exempt employees of their hard-earned overtime pay. Although not paid, this drive time was compensable because it occurred after the first principal activities and before the last principal activities of their workday, the Plaintiff adds. The Defendant provides in-home healthcare services throughout Ohio. The Defendant operates under various entities and business names, including Cambridge, Caretenders, Comfort Home Health Care, and Home Care by Blackstone. The Defendant employs Home Care Providers to provide Caregiving Duties. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members were employed by the Defendant as Home Care Providers and they were paid on an hourly basis. A copy of Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional class certification is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZNSZYZ at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: 614-949-1181 Facsimile: 614-386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Class Suit Underway in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Pandora Media, Inc. continues to face the Pre-1972 Sound Recording Litigation initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc., according to Liberty Media Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings"). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statute, which following denial of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to ... settle an important question of law." The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. After Flo & Eddie filed its action in 2014 against Pandora, several other plaintiffs commenced separate actions, both on an individual and class action basis, alleging a variety of violations of common law and state copyright and other statutes arising from allegations that Pandora owed royalties for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings. Many of these separate actions have been dismissed or are in the process of being dismissed. Sirius XM Holdings believes that none of the remaining pending actions is likely to have a material adverse effect on Pandora's business, financial condition or results of operations. Sirius XM Holdings believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and intends to defend these actions vigorously. Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. LLR INC: Must Face Alaska Sales Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Malcolm Brudigam, Esq. -- malcolm.brudigam@pillsburylaw.com -- and Robert Merten III, Esq. -- robert.merten@pillsburylaw.com -- of Pillsbury, in an article for JDSupra, report that in Alaska, a state and local sales tax class action survived a motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations after a federal judge determined the plaintiff's alleged claims were plausible. In Van v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe et al., the plaintiff -- an Alaska resident and customer of the defendant retailer -- alleged she was improperly charged sales tax on clothing purchased from the out-of-state retailer's "remote consultants" and shipped to her residence in Anchorage, Alaska. With no state sales tax in Alaska and few local sales taxes, the plaintiff claimed defendant retailer unlawfully collected sales tax on transactions shipped to Alaska for over a year. Defendant -- a clothing retailer known for selling women's leggings -- moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and also moved to strike the class allegations in the complaint, claiming the plaintiff's alleged facts were insufficient to support a class action under the federal rules of civil procedure. In her complaint, plaintiff asserted two claims on behalf of herself and those similarly situated: (1) a claim under Alaska's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPCPA); and (2) the tort of conversion. More specifically, plaintiff alleged defendant retailer violated the UTPCPA by knowingly charging and collecting unlawful sales tax, failing to disclose to customers that it was not authorized to collect such taxes, and actively misrepresenting to its customers, through defendant's remote consultants and a purported 2016 company tax policy, that the sales tax collection was lawful. Plaintiff also claimed defendant retailer intentionally violated the UTPCPA by programming its point-of-sale system to collect sales tax on clothing sales when such collection was unlawful. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss in part because plaintiff's UTPCPA claim was not pled with particularity, as required for allegations of fraud. But the court also granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint, finding plaintiff could sufficiently plead the UTPCPA claim. The court also reviewed and denied defendant retailer's motion to strike class allegations. Defendant first argued that plaintiff could not meet the requirement that she could fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative class because she personally received a refund of the overcharged sales tax. Defendant next argued that its ongoing refund program meant plaintiff could not meet the "superiority requirement" requisite for class actions. Specifically, defendant retailer argued the refund program was superior to the proposed class action because the program already provided a remedy to class members by refunding the sales tax automatically and without any proof of purchase required. The court rejected both arguments because plaintiff and the putative class also sought statutory damages under the UTPCPA ($500 per transaction), so a refund was not the only relief plaintiff and class members would be entitled to should they prevail. Previously in 2017, a similar case was filed by the same firm in the Western District of Pennsylvania against the same defendant retailer, alleging claims on behalf of class members in eleven states with jurisdictions that had no sales tax on clothing that defendant retailer sold but where the class members were charged a "fraudulent tax." In that case, class certification was denied, primarily because the laws of eleven different states would apply to the plaintiffs' claims. The Alaska action, on the other hand, only concerns one state (Alaska), avoiding the class certification issues of the predecessor case. This development serves as an unfortunate cautionary tale for taxpayers proactively taking measures to ensure they are not under-collecting state and local taxes, even when they grant full refunds in instances where tax has been inadvertently over-collected. [GN] MASSACHUSETTS: Parent Gathers Names to Join Flu Shot Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Doneen Durling, writing for The Gardner News, reports that social media heated up as soon as a mandate crossed the desk demanding that all students in Massachusetts schools must get the flu vaccine. Tina Santos is a parent of students attending schools within the district. When Gov. Charlie Baker recently made influenza shots mandatory for students, many within the district were adamant they were not going to subject their children to ingredients in the vaccine that they believe includes things such as formaldehyde and antibiotics. Santos said that every year the shots include strains of the flu virus that are hit and miss. Santos recently sat outside at the Old Murdock Senior Center collecting signatures to submit to a class-action lawsuit against Baker by a group that goes by the name "Flu You Baker," which believes that the shots should not be a mandate but rather a decision that parents can determine with help from their family physician. Santos said she knows many who received their flu shot and got sick. She said the shot can have an effect on a child's natural immunity. Most of all, she does not want to see the shot as a mandate. According to the mandate, children 6 months and older who attend child care preschool, kindergarten through college in Massachusetts must receive the flu shot to reduce the possibility of respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. The state health department said any child attending school must receive the shot by Dec. 31. Exemptions from the flu vaccine include medical and religious reasons. All students in remote learning are also exempt. According to health statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts in 2017 saw 1,433 deaths from flu/pneumonia, a rate of 15.9, the 15th highest rate in the nation. The national average was 14.3. COVID-19 deaths so far in Massachusetts have reached 9,141 with 123,000 positive cases. Santos said all signatures must be in by Sept. 10 for the filing of the lawsuit. [GN] MEDLEY CAPITAL: Oct. 21 Hearing on Bid for Final Settlement Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is scheduled for October 21, 2020, on the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement of the class action, Case No. 4:17-cv-145, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division ("Class Action 1"), according to Medley Capital Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on February 15, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145 (hereinafter, "Class Action 1"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100 ("Class Action 2"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation were also named as defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball, Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101 ("Class Action 3") (together with Class Action 1 and Class Action 2, the "Virginia Class Actions"). Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc. (as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747 (the "Pennsylvania Class Action") (together with the Virginia Class Actions, the "Class Action Complaints"). The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan. The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and Class Action 3); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania Class Action), allege that those defendants in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in, American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan to American Web Loan. The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011. American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives had not alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan. In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017. By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October 29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims. On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") that has been publicly filed in Class Action 1 (ECF No. 414-1). Among other things, upon satisfaction of the conditions specified in the Settlement Agreement and upon the Effective Date, the Settlement Agreement (capitalized terms not otherwise defined have the meaning set forth in the Settlement Agreement): (1) requires Plaintiffs to seek certification of a nationwide settlement class of all persons in the United States to whom American Web Loan lent money from February 10, 2010 through a future date on which the Court may enter a Preliminary Approval Order as to the Settlement Agreement (which certification Defendants have agreed not to oppose); (2) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to pay Monetary Consideration of US$65,000,000 (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are paying any Monetary Consideration pursuant to the Settlement Agreement); (3) requires American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to cancel (as a disputed debt) and release all claims that relate to or arise out of the loans in its Collection Portfolio, which is valued at Seventy-Six Million Dollars (US$76,000,000) and comprised of loans to more than 39,000 borrowers (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube have any interest in any of the loans that are being cancelled); (4) requires American Web Loan and Curry to provide certain Non-Monetary Benefits (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are conferring any Non-Monetary Benefits pursuant to the Settlement Agreement); (5) fully, finally, and forever releases Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube from any and all claims, causes of action, suits, obligations, debts, demands, agreements, promises, liabilities, damages, losses, controversies, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees of any nature whatsoever, whether arising under federal law, state law, common law or equity, tribal law, foreign law, territorial law, contract, rule, regulation, any regulatory promulgation (including, but not limited to, any opinion or declaratory ruling), or any other law, including Unknown Claims, whether suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated, punitive or compensatory, as of the date of the Final Fairness Approval Order and Judgment, that relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the name of American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception of claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment); (6) provides for a mutual general release between Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube on the one hand, and American Web Loan and Curry on the other hand; and (7) provides that, as of the future Effective Date, none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube shall (i) be entitled to indemnification from AWL Defendants (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) or (ii) bring any claim against any Released Parties, including American Web Loan and Curry, that relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the name of American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception of claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment). The Settlement Agreement is subject to various conditions before it will become effective on the Effective Date, including payment of the Monetary Consideration, Final Approval by the Court of the Settlement following Notice to the Settlement Class and a Final Approval Hearing; entry of Judgment dismissing Class Action 1 with prejudice; and expiration of the time during which Plaintiffs and American Web Loan may exercise specified termination rights. A hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion in Class Action 1 for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for October 21, 2020. Medley Capital Corporation is a business development company. The fund seeks to invest in privately negotiated debt and equity securities of small and middle market companies. The company is based in New York, New York. MEI PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 9 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. MEI Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: MEIP) Class Period: August 2, 2017 and July 1, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 9, 2020 MEI Pharma is a late-stage pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of various therapies for the treatment of cancer. MEI Pharma's clinical drug candidates include, among others, Pracinostat, an oral histone deacetylase ("HDAC") inhibitor. MEI Pharma and Helsinn Healthcare SA, a Swiss pharmaceutical corporation ("Helsinn"), with which MEI Pharma had an exclusive worldwide license, development, manufacturing and commercialization agreement for Pracinostat in acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), myelodysplastic syndrome, and other potential indications (the "Helsinn License Agreement"), were evaluating Pracinostat in, among other studies, a pivotal Phase 3 global registration clinical trial for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy (the "Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial"). The Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, which was initiated in June 2017, was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that would enroll worldwide approximately 500 adults with newly diagnosed AML who are unfit to receive intensive chemotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Pracinostat or placebo with azacitidine as background therapy. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. On July 2, 2020, MEI Pharma issued a press release announcing that it was discontinuing the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial. Specifically, the Company advised that an interim futility analysis of the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial, undertaken by the study's Independent Data Monitoring Committee ("IDMC"), "has demonstrated it was unlikely to meet the primary endpoint of overall survival compared to the control group," and that "[b]ased on the outcome of the interim analysis, the decision was made to discontinue the recruitment of patients and end the study," which "was based on a lack of efficacy and not on safety concerns." Following the announcement, the Company's stock price fell $0.78 per share, or 18.27%, to close at $3.49 per share on July 2, 2020. The complaint, filed on August 10, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) MEI Pharma had overstated Pracinostat's potential efficacy as an AML treatment for the target population; (ii) consequently, the Phase 3 Pracinostat Trial was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint of overall survival; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial condition and prospects for Pracinostat; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Strike Freedman Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Millendo Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to strike the second amended complaint in the purported class action suit headed by Freedman Family Investments LLC remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience and certain former officers of OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Dahhan Action"). On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company answered the amended complaint. On December 9, 2019, the court granted leave for the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint under seal and permitted the defendants to file a motion to strike the second amended complaint. On December 30, 2019, the court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation. On March 3, 2020, the parties conducted a mediation session. As the mediation was unsuccessful, the parties are resuming discovery, and the Company filed a motion to strike the second amended complaint on May 1, 2020. The Company believes that the amended complaint and the second amended complaint are without merit and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will be successful. Millendo Therapeutics said, "A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit." Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the development of various treatments for orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settlement with General Hospital Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that its settlement agreement with The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, is subject to procedural requirements pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Class Action Fairness Act. The Company further stated that if settlement is not completed, the Company will continue to "vigorously defend" against the suit. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection alleging that the Company and Sandoz sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection and thereby exclude competition for generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. On December 10, 2019, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with NGH in which the Company agreed to pay an aggregate of US$35.0 million as the Company's portion of the consideration for the release of all alleged claims. The Company recorded a US$35.0 million liability in connection with the settlement in its consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2019, of which US$15.0 million was paid during the six months ended June 30, 2020 and US$20.0 million was paid in July 2020. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery and development of novel biologic therapies for the treatment of rare immune-mediated diseases in the United States. The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its name to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. NATIONAL FREIGHT: Misclassification Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that a misclassification lawsuit against National Freight Inc. will proceed as a class action nearly five years after the complaint was originally filed in federal court. On Aug. 25, a panel for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied NFI's petition for permission to appeal. On July 14, NFI filed the petition after a New Jersey district court certified the class of truckers on July 1. That certification was granted nearly 10 months after a motion for class certification was filed. Now that the appellate court has denied to weigh in on the class certification, the lawsuit against NFI will proceed in the district court as a class action. The attempt to stop the class certification further delayed litigation that has been in the courts for several years. In November 2015, NFI driver John Portillo filed the lawsuit alleging the company misclassified drivers in an attempt to keep wages low. According to the complaint, NFI entered into at least 135 independent contractor agreements with drivers that should have been considered employees. The lawsuit alleges that the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. Consequently, they missed out on wages owed if they were classified as employees. According to the complaint, NFI hired both employee drivers and independent contractors to deliver goods from Trader Joe's warehouses to various stores on the East Coast. The lawsuit alleges that employees and independent contractors performed the same job. More specifically, drivers would pick up loads in one of two warehouses. One warehouse was in Nazareth, Pa., and the other in Hatfield, Pa. Those loads were delivered to stores in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington, D.C. Independent contractors were required to have their own trucks. However, NFI also required that all trucks carry the NFI logo and operate under its U.S. Department of Transportation number. Furthermore, drivers in the lawsuit claim they were entirely dependent on NFI for their business. According to the lawsuit, they were not allowed to perform delivery services for anyone else during the time at NFI. Independent contractors would report to the Pennsylvania distribution each day to pick up the trailers. At the same time, employee drivers would be performing the same loading tasks. [GN] NATIONAL TIRE: Class Action Settlement Obtains Final Court Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Bethany Rodgers, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that Utah's incoming solicitor general, one of the state's highest-ranking attorneys, is contending with possible court sanctions for allegedly making "patently false" statements during a federal lawsuit over tire safety standards. Earlier this month, a federal magistrate judge wrote in a scathing order that Melissa Holyoak, who was announced as solicitor general on Sept. 8, had created slowdowns in the case and wasted judicial resources that were already stretched thin by the pandemic. "The Court is concerned that Ms. Holyoak may have intentionally attempted to mislead the parties and the Court on a material matter in a case of national importance, which impacts the safety of every man, woman, and child who travels on American roads," U.S. Magistrate Judge William Matthewman wrote. "If not intentional, her conduct appears to be reckless or negligent." A spokesman for Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes called the situation a "misunderstanding" and said Holyoak had disclosed the incident to the office. Her mistake "in no way jeopardized the safety of anyone on the road," spokesman Richard Piatt said. In a prepared statement, Holyoak said she made an "honest mistake" interpreting court documents and corrected herself as soon as other attorneys brought the error to her attention. "While I'm embarrassed that the incorrect argument didn't adhere to the high standards I hold myself to, I don't believe sanctions are appropriate because it was not in bad faith and I was not intending to delay the proceedings," she said. The magistrate judge admonished Holyoak, who was most recently an attorney with the nonprofit Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), over her objections to a settlement agreement in a federal lawsuit. The class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida claimed that National Tire and Battery and TBC Corp. improperly sold millions of tires without registering them with the tire manufacturers or providing consumers with forms to complete this registration on their own. This registration process, mandated by federal law, is crucial so that in the event of a safety recall, the tire manufactures can alert affected drivers, according to the suit. And violating these rules can put customers at risk of missing recall notifications and continuing to drive on faulty tires, the plaintiffs contended. Ultimately, after mediation, the two sides agreed to a settlement in which National Tire and Battery agreed to change their registration practices, pay $7,500 to the two named plaintiffs and pay $645,000 in attorney fees and costs, court documents show. The defendants did not admit wrongdoing or liability in the agreement and indicated they settled in order to avoid costly litigation. On Sept. 1, Matthewman granted final approval to the settlement. However, Holyoak objected to the agreement, identifying herself as an affected consumer who bought tires from a TBC Corp. subsidiary without receiving a registration form. She also explained that she worked for CCAF, whose representatives intervene in cases when they believe attorneys are using "unfair class action procedures to benefit themselves at the expense of the class." In this case, she said, attorneys were reaping hundreds of thousands of dollars while the class members -- tire customers impacted by the lawsuit -- weren't receiving any money. Moreover, she claimed the settlement agreement merely required "cosmetic business practice changes" that would do no good for class members. But one of her primary arguments against the settlement, according to Matthewman, was illegitimate, resting on a false assertion that class members were releasing their claims for monetary damages. "It would have been obvious to Ms. Holyoak -- indeed to a first-year law student -- that her strenuous objections were inapplicable had she simply taken the time to actually read the Settlement," the judge wrote. When attorneys pointed out these misrepresentations, Holyoak withdrew that part of her objection and indicated she'd misread the settlement agreement, according to Matthewman, who accused her of appearing "quite cavalier regarding the serious and misleading nature of her statements and representations." The judge said he's thinking of slapping Holyoak with sanctions, such as making her to pay attorneys fees and costs, and instructed her to send her defense to the court by Sept. 16. Piatt said attorneys in the case mischaracterized Holyoak's mistake and that she retracted her erroneous argument as soon as she learned of it. Because the settlement didn't change the existing tire registration system, the spokesman said, her objection to the settlement and the resulting delay didn't endanger drivers. "Melissa and the Center for Class Action Fairness have fought unfair class actions like this one for over 10 years, returning over $200 million to consumers and class members," he said. But Matthewman argued that proposed changes to tire sales practices are in the best interests of consumers. Going forward, tire buyers will have peace of mind that the sellers are complying with the rules and that manufacturers will be able to reach them with recall information. "Plaintiffs have achieved a significant change in the Defendants' practice that will protect tens of thousands of drivers and their passengers, and perhaps more than that," he wrote in the order. Holyoak attended the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, graduating in 2003 in the top 10% of her class, according to a news release from the Utah Attorney General's Office. She's experienced as a litigator and prosecutor and has most recently worked as president and general counsel of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and its Center for Class Action Fairness in Washington, D.C. The mission of the Center for Class Action Fairness is to combat "abusive class action settlements," according to its website. Attorneys in these class action lawsuits often respond to the group's objections by painting them as "professional objectors" who will drop their complaints if plaintiffs award them a cut of the attorneys' fees, Holyoak wrote in her objection to the tire settlement. But she said the center has never rescinded an objection in exchange for payment and has fought for better outcomes for class members in these lawsuits. In a prepared statement, Reyes praised Holyoak for a successful track record in the courtroom and significant litigation, trial and appellate experience. "I'm confident she will serve the citizens of Utah with dedication and distinction," Reyes said. "Her diverse career experience is just what the state needs as our population continues to grow and more is at stake in every legal case we handle in our office." On Sept. 8, Reyes announced that Holyoak would immediately be taking over as solicitor general, whose duties include arguing appellate cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her predecessor, Tyler Green, exited the solicitor general post to work in the private sector, according to a news release. [GN] NCL CORP: Securities Suit over Misleading COVID Statements Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ NCL Corporation Ltd. is facing a consolidated securities class action related to alleged false and misleading statements of the Company to the market and customers about COVID-19, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J. Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the same defendants. On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19. The Company said, "The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our ordinary shares between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020. We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom." In addition, in March 2020, the Florida Attorney General announced an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the COVID-19 outbreak. Following the announcement of the investigation by the Florida Attorney General, the Company received notifications from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted at this time. NCL Corporation Ltd. is a global cruise company operating the Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises brands. The Company is based in Miami, Florida. NEW YORK: 762 Restaurants Join Indoor Dining Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Cristian Benavides, writing for PIX 11 News, reports that while restaurant owners say the governor's Sept. 2 announcement to allow indoor dining in New York City was a step in the right direction, many still feel discriminated against. Indoor dining will resume at just 25%, while surrounding areas will be at 50%. Attorney James Mermigis told PIX 11 News 762 restaurants have joined the class action suit filed by Il Bacco, on behalf of restaurants in Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx. Another 185 restaurants in Staten Island have joined another class-action suit; they're also represented by Mermigis. "We want to be treated like any other restaurant in the state," Mermigis said. The team at Il Bacco in Little Neck, Queens, which borders Great Neck on Long Island, feels that if they hadn't started the class action suit in the first place, indoor dining may not have gotten a restart date. "I think that this lawsuit and all the pandemonium it's caused was the number one factor," said Tina Maria Oppedisano, the restaurant's operations manager. Restaurant owners say 25% is not enough. Donald Ruan, owner of China New Star in Brooklyn laughed at the thought. "Twenty-five percent, [at] such a huge place like this," he said. "It's not enough." Beginning Sept. 30, restaurants can open indoors at 25% capacity, with temperature checks, masks and contact information from patrons. "One member of each party has to leave information so there's contact tracing information if there is an outbreak," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. That's different from elsewhere in the state, where 50% capacity without temperature checks or contact information has been the norm for months. "At 25%, some of my clients won't even bother opening. Twenty-five percent does not pay bills. It's an insult," Mermigis said. So the class action lawsuit will move forward. "I won't stop until we're given what's fair and what's right" The governor has said that he hopes to have a decision by Nov. 1 on whether to allow indoor dining to get to 50%, but warned that if the positivity rate goes above 2%, it may all shut down again. [GN] NORTHPORT-EAST MIDDLE: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- WABC-NY reports that a Long Island middle school that has battled concerns about toxic chemicals on its campus for decades is now facing a class action lawsuit alleging the school district failed to do enough to protect its students from contaminants. Northpoint Middle School filed a lawsuit against the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District. [GN] NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Consolidated Amended Suit Over COVID-19 --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated amended complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff's counsel in the consolidated class action suit, which alleged that Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19, according to Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J. Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the same defendants. On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19. The Company said, "The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our ordinary shares between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020. We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom." In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the COVID-19 outbreak. Following the announcement of the investigation by the Florida Attorney General, the Company received notifications from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted at this time. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various distribution channels including retail and travel agents, international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Miami, Florida. NUTRACEUTICAL CORPORATION: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA ------------------------------------------------------------- Nutraceutical Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nutraceutical Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07586 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020). Nutraceutical Corporation is an integrated manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and retailer of branded nutritional supplements and other natural products sold primarily to and through domestic health and natural food stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ONESPAN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) between May 9, 2018 and August 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important October 19, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for OneSpan investors under the federal securities laws. To join the OneSpan class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) as a result, OneSpan overstated its revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of 2020; (3) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC; (4) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its financial statements; (5) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation; and (6) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1937.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PENNSYLVANIA: Howard Files Prisoner Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laura Williams. The case is styled as Shaquille Howard, James Byrd, Jason Porter, Keisha Cohen and Albert Castaphany, on their own behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Laura Williams, Chief Deputy Warden of Healthcare Services, Orlando Harper, Warden of Allegheny County Jail, Michael Barfield, Mental Health Director and Allegheny County, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01389-LPL (W.D. Penn., Sept. 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights. The Defendants are government representatives.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Keith E. Whitson, Esq. Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis 120 Fifth Avenue Suite 2700, Fifth Avenue Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001 Tel: (412) 577-5200 Email:kwhitson@schnader.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Gibson Suit Transferred to M.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Craig Gibson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, Defendant, was transferred from the District of Pennsylvania Western with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01102 to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) on September 16, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-01682-CCC. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Ward, Esq. The Law Firm of Fenters Ward 201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 201 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Tel: (412) 545-3015 Email: jward@fentersward.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. Messer Strickler, Ltd. 12276 San Jose Blvd., Suite 718 Jacksonville, FL 32223 Tel: (904) 527-1172 Fax: (904) 683-7353 Email: lburnette@messerstrickler.com PORTLAND GENERAL: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Portland General Electric Company (NYSE: POR) between April 24, 2020 and August 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PGE investors under the federal securities laws. To join the PGE class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1938.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) PGE personnel had entered energy trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1938.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] PORTMEIRION GROUP: Jaquez Alleges Violation under ADA ----------------------------------------------------- Portmeirion Group Designs, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Portmeirion Group Designs, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07594 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020). Portmeirion Group Designs, LLC is a British company selling ceramic tableware, cookware, giftware, glassware and home fragrance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PPL CORP: Appeal in Cane Run Environmental Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- PPL Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the appeal taken by the plaintiffs in the Cane Run Environmental Claims class action suit remains pending in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (U.S. District Court) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act, RCRA, and common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. In July 2014, the U.S. District Court dismissed the RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss the common law tort claims. In February 2017, the U.S. District Court dismissed PPL as a defendant and dismissed the final federal claim against LG&E, and in April 2017, issued an Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction on the state law claims dismissing the case in its entirety. In June 2017, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court, against LG&E alleging state law nuisance, negligence and trespass tort claims. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for alleged property damage due to purported plant emissions on behalf of a class of residents within one to three miles of the plant. On January 8, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' request for class certification. On January 14, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Kentucky Court of Appeals. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter and an estimate or range of possible losses cannot be determined. PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. PPL CORP: Bid to Dismiss Talen Montana Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- PPL Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that a state court has held a hearing regarding a motion to dismiss the class action suit styled, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PPL Corporation et al. The bid remains pending. On October 29, 2018, Talen Montana Retirement Plan and Talen Energy Marketing filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of current and contingent creditors of Talen Montana who allegedly suffered harm or allegedly will suffer reasonably foreseeable harm as a result of a November 2014 distribution of proceeds from the sale of then-PPL Montana's hydroelectric generating facilities. The action was filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, against PPL and certain of its affiliates and current and former officers and directors (Talen Putative Class Action). Plaintiff asserts claims for, among other things, fraudulent transfer, both actual and constructive; recovery against subsequent transferees; civil conspiracy; aiding and abetting tortious conduct; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff is seeking avoidance of the purportedly fraudulent transfer, unspecified damages, including punitive damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief. In December 2018, PPL removed the Talen Putative Class Action from the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division (MT Federal Court). In January 2019, the plaintiff moved to remand the Talen Putative Class Action back to state court, and dismissed without prejudice all current and former PPL Corporation directors from the case. In September 2019, the MT Federal Court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. Although, the PPL defendants petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant an appeal of the remand decision, in November 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied that request and in December 2019, Talen Montana Retirement Plan filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Sixteenth Judicial District of the State of Montana, Rosebud County, which removed Talen Energy Marketing as a plaintiff. In January 2020, PPL defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court held a hearing on June 24, 2020 regarding the motion to dismiss. PPL cannot predict the Court's decision. PPL Corporation, a utility company, delivers electricity and natural gas in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Company operates in three segments: U.K. Regulated, Kentucky Regulated, and Pennsylvania Regulated. It was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania. PROGENITY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of October 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Progenity, Inc. ("Progenity" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PROG) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Progenity, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") conducted in June 2020. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Progenity investors under the federal securities laws. In June 2020, Progenity completed its IPO, in which it sold approximately 6.7 million shares for $15.00 per share. On August 13, 2020, Progenity announced its second quarter 2020 results in a press release. Therein, the Company disclosed that "second-quarter revenues reflected a $10.3 million accrual for refunds to government payors," related to a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and several states to resolve claims that Progenity had fraudulently billed federal healthcare programs for prenatal tests and provided kickbacks to physicians to induce them to order Progenity tests for their patients. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Progenity had overbilled government payors by $10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration Statement; (2) that Progenity would need to refund this overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly results; and (3) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Progenity during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the October 27, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Class Action Recovers More Than GBP42.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Natalie Tuck, writing for PENSIONSAge, reports that a successful class action against a US pharmaceuticals company that saw the UK's Norfolk Pension Fund serve as the lead plaintiff has recovered in excess of GBP42.5 million (US$55 million) for investors. As reported in PENSIONSAge's sister publication, European Pensions, the original ruling in February 2019 saw the jury in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Santa Ana, California find Puma Biotechnology Inc (Puma) and the company's CEO, Alan Auerbach, liable for securities fraud. It has now been announced that in September this year, a court-appointed administrator confirmed the claims of more than 4,600 individual and institutional investors defrauded by Puma Biotechnology and Auerbach. The company was found to have made false and misleading statements about the efficacy of Puma Biotechnology's only product, the drug now known as Nerlynx. The jury's verdict, finding that a company and its CEO violated the federal securities laws, is the first such verdict since 2011 in a §10 class action brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Following the jury verdict, Puma Biotechnology shareholders were given 120 days to file claims. Subsequently, the claims administrator, Gilardi & Co., validated the filed claims and calculated the damages suffered by investors based on the jury's finding that the defendants' fraud had artificially inflated Puma Biotechnology's stock price by $4.50 (GBP3.47) per share – nearly half of Puma's stock price, which currently trades for less than $10 (GBP7.73) per share. The claim forms identify that more than 11.3 million shares of Puma Biotechnology common stock were damaged as a result of defendants' fraudulent conduct. The number of damaged shares far exceeds the estimates defendants represented in multiple Securities and Exchange Commission filings since the jury's fraud finding. The total damages based on the claims, including interest that has been awarded by the court as a result of defendants' intentional violations of the federal securities laws, exceeds GBP42.5m ($55m). The damages due to investors represent the majority of Puma Biotechnology's reported cash on hand and is not covered by any insurance policy. The claimed damages are more than three to six times what defendants have told Puma Biotechnology shareholders to expect as a result of the jury verdict. In multiple Securities and Exchange Commission filings, defendants represented that total damages would only be GBP7 million - GBP13.9 million ($9 million - 18 million) -- representations defendants continued to make even after receiving reports from the claims administrator that damages would exceed GBP38.6 million ($50 million). Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd's, Jason Forge, who led the trial team on behalf of lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund, stated: "Puma seems no more able to change its culture than a tiger can change its stripes. After spending tens of millions of dollars on an army of lawyers, a jury unanimously found that Puma and Alan Auerbach committed fraud, and now they have to pay far more than what they told investors this defeat would cost." [GN] PVH CORP: Proskauer Obtains Dismissal of Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Ambrogio Visconti, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that Proskauer obtained the dismissal of all claims against client PVH in a putative class action. The class action filed in the Southern District of New York alleged that PVH falsely advertised price discounts for apparel sold at its Van Heusen outlet stores in New Jersey. The complaint alleged that plaintiff purchased several clothing items at a New Jersey Van Heusen outlet store advertised as on sale from a reference price listed on the items' price tag. Plaintiff claimed the advertised reference prices were "fictitious" because PVH supposedly had never sold the items plaintiff purchased or comparable items at the listed prices. PVH moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to plausibly allege with particularity, as required by FRCP 8(a) and 9(b), that PVH's advertised reference prices and discounts were false. The complaint's description of counsel's investigation fell far short of what would be needed to plausibly allege that PVH violated any applicable law. PVH also moved to dismiss on the separate ground that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that PVH's alleged false advertising caused plaintiff any injury. Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York granted PVH's motion on both grounds and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, agreeing with all of the arguments for dismissal we made on behalf of PVH. The Proskauer team for PVH included associate Jeff Warshafsky, who argued the motion to dismiss, partner Larry Weinstein (Picture), and associates Seth Fiur, Anisha Shenai and Brooke Gottlieb (Litigation). Involved fees earner: Seth Fiur - Proskauer Rose LLP; Brooke Gottlieb - Proskauer Rose LLP; Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate - Proskauer Rose LLP; Jeffrey Warshafsky - Proskauer Rose LLP; Lawrence Weinstein - Proskauer Rose LLP; Law Firms: Proskauer Rose LLP Clients: PVH Corp. [GN] QUALCOMM INC: Seeks Dismissal of $15-Bil. Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Graham, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Qualcomm Inc. is asking a federal appeals court to toss an antitrust class action seeking up to $15 billion in damages in light of the chip maker's recent victory over the Federal Trade Commission. "The FTC decision resolves all of plaintiffs' claims because it precludes plaintiffs from showing, based on their liability theories, that Qualcomm's conduct harmed competition in the alleged relevant markets," Qualcomm's attorney, Robert Van Nest of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, said in a letter filed on Sept. 8 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. [GN] QUTOUTIAO INC: Portnoy Law Alerts of Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Qutoutiao Inc. (NASDAQ: QTT) investors that acquired shares between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020. Investors have until October 19, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email to join the case. It is alleged within the complaint filed in this class action that Defendants made materially misleading and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose facts that were materially adverse about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a related party, which bypassed third-party oversight of the content as well as the quality of the advertisements; (2) that the Company placed advertisements for products on its mobile app whose claims could not be substantiated and thus were considered false advertisements under the applicable regulations; (3) that, as a result, the Company would face increasing reputational harm and regulatory scrutiny; (4) that, as a result, the Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and (5) that, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, as a result of the foregoing. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] QUTOUTIAO INC: Scott+Scott Alerts of Class Action Filing -------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Qutoutiao Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: QTT), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's September 2018 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Qutoutiao American Depository Shares (ADS) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about September 14, 2018, and have suffered losses, you are encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lawsuit alleges that Qutoutiao (and the other named defendants) misled investors by failing to disclose that, among other things: (1) that Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a related party, thereby bypassing third-party oversight of the content and quality of the advertisements; (2) that Qutoutiao placed advertisements on its mobile app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and thus were considered false advertisements under applicable regulations; (3) that, as a result, Qutoutiao would face increasing regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; and (4) that, as a result Qutoutiao's advertising revenue was likely to decline. Due to the foregoing, according to the complaint filed, the defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Then on December 10, 2019, Wolfpack Research published a report entitled "QTT: Fake Revenue, Non-Existent Cash, Undisclosed Related Parties," alleging, among other things, that Qutoutiao overstated its revenues by recording non-existent advances from advertising customers and, further, that Qutoutiao replaced its third-party advertising agent with a related party, allowing it to "perpetrate the unmitigated ad fraud that [Wolfpack] observed in [its] sample." Following this news, the Company's securities fell nearly 4%. Then, on July 15, 2020, hosts of a consumer rights gala stated that Qutoutiao had allowed ads on its platform promoting exaggerated or impossible claims from weight-loss products. Following this news, Qutoutiao ADSs plummeted 23%, to close at $2.84 per ADS on July 16, 2020. On July 17, 2020, Chinese media reported that Qutoutiao's app had been removed from domestic Android app store. What You Can Do If you purchased Qutoutiao ADS, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com, or visit the Qutoutiao page on our website at https://scott-scott.com/case/qutoutiao-inc/. The lead plaintiff deadline is October 19, 2020. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contacts: Jonathan Zimmerman Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (888) 398-9312 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN] RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit over Privacy Violations Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. is facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by Meena Reuben in California Superior Court for San Mateo County on June 16, 2020 related to alleged violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben ("Reuben") filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of US$5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend time for the Company to respond to the Reuben's complaint. The Company has not responded to the complaint. The Court has set an August 17, 2020 Case Management Conference. This litigation is still in its earliest stages. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Suit Shelved Pending Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia has issued an order holding the class action suit initiated by Joann Hurley in abeyance pending approval of a settlement. As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter on March 31, 2020, the parties in the class action suit mediated the case before a private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley ("Hurley"), filed a second amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and regulations promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for reelection, and others. Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims. The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Hurley filed a motion to certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion, which have been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court. Discovery closed on October 25, 2019. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2019. Hurley opposed the motion, which has been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court. The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. The settlement will need to be approved by the court. Meanwhile, the court has issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending approval of the settlement. RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sanford Heisler Files Amended Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- On September 1, 2020, Sanford Heisler Sharp filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against oil and gas behemoth Schlumberger Technology Corporation, the largest oilfield services company in the world, on behalf of women who work on oil rigs in the United States. The Amended Complaint adds Jessica Cheatham, a former Schlumberger employee who worked on oil rigs in various states, as a Plaintiff and Class Representative. Ms. Cheatham joins original Plaintiff and Class Representative Sara Saidman. The Plaintiffs are represented by Michael D. Palmer, Nicole E. Wiitala, and Carolin E. Guentert of Sanford Heisler Sharp and Todd Slobin and Melinda Arbuckle of Shellist Lazarz Slobin. "Despite being employed by Schlumberger at different times and often different locations, the discrimination they experienced is consistent and common," said Michael Palmer. "Plaintiffs now seek to put an end to the systemic discrimination and harassment that they and hundreds of other women have suffered while working at Schlumberger." In amending the complaint to add Ms. Cheatham, Plaintiffs chronicle the gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation that Ms. Cheatham, like Ms. Saidman, endured throughout her employment at Schlumberger. For example, according to the complaint, Ms. Cheatham alleges that one of her male colleagues threatened to "bend [her] over [his] knee and spank [her]" and used inappropriate and crude sexual language when teaching her how to use a certain tool (such as describing one part of the tool as "the pussy"). When Ms. Cheatham complained to Human Resources, she was told, "Guys just do that. This is a man's field, so they're bound to say stuff." The Amended Complaint details other instances of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, including that one of Ms. Cheatham's male colleagues told her that she was "one of those girls working in the oilfield, trying to sleep around with men out here." On another occasion, Ms. Cheatham was accused of performing "special favors" of a sexual nature in order to get a promotion. A different Schlumberger employee told Ms. Cheatham that wearing shorts on the rig meant that she was "asking for it." Ms. Cheatham also alleges that male workers told her that she did not deserve to work on rigs and, in one instance, called the Schlumberger office to request that she be replaced by a man. Ms. Cheatham alleges that she reported sexual harassment and gender discrimination to Schlumberger on multiple occasions, but her complaints were either discounted or ignored entirely. The Amended Complaint details how Schlumberger retaliated against Ms. Cheatham for complaining about discrimination, eventually refusing to staff her on any rig unless she accepted a significant demotion and took a position in Alaska. "The addition of Ms. Cheatham as a Plaintiff and Class Representative is further evidence of the pervasive gender-based hostility that exists for women who work in the male-dominated oil field at Schlumberger," said Nicole Wiitala. About Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP is a national public interest class-action litigation law firm, which has offices in New York, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, San Diego, Nashville, and Baltimore. Sanford Heisler Sharp focuses on employment discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam, criminal/sexual violence, and financial services matters. The firm represents select individual clients such as executives, lawyers in employment disputes, and whistleblowers. The firm has recovered over $1 billion for its clients. For more information about the firm, call 202-499-5202 or email dsanford@sanfordheisler.com. More information about the firm and its successes can be found at https://sanfordheisler.com/. For more information, contact Jamie Moss, newsPRos, 201-493-1027, jamie@newspros.com. [GN] SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Tonkawa Asserts Card Shuffling Machine Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (operating as Tonkawa Enterprises) on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Scientific Games Corporation, Bally Technologies, Inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01637 (D. Nev., September 3, 2020), seeks to recover damages equal to the difference between the prices they directly paid for automatic card shufflers and the competitive prices that would have prevailed in a relevant market, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all sums awarded and other relief under the antitrust laws of the United States, particularly Section 2 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. The Tonkawa Tribe resides in Kay County in Northern Oklahoma. It operates the Native Lights Casino and the Tonkawa Hotel and Casino through Tonkawa Enterprises. The Plaintiff alleges that Scientific Games, Bally Technologies and Bally Gaming monopolize the automatic card shuffling machines for regulated casinos in the United States. Scientific Games Corporation acquired Bally Technologies on November 21, 2014. Bally Gaming, Inc. is or was a subsidiary of Bally Gaming International, Inc. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH LAW PRACTICE, PLLC 3613 S. Eastern Ave. Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 684-6000 Fax: (702) 543-3279 Email: Michael@LynchLawPractice.com - and - Zeke Fletcher, Esq. FLETCHER LAW, PLLC 124 W. Allegan, #1400 Lansing, MI 48933 Telephone: (517) 755-0776 Fax: (517) 913-6008 Email: zfletcher@fletcherlawpllc.com - and - R. Stephen Berry, Esq. Berry Law PLLC 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 645 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 296-3020 Fax: (202) 296-3038 Email: sberry@berrylawpllc.com SHOE SHOW INC: Smith, et al. File ERISA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Sarah Smith, Michael Crisco and Jeffrey Morrow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shoe Show, Inc., Board of Trustees of Shoe Show Retirement Savings Plan, John Van Der Poel, Robert Tucker, Lisa Tucker and Spencer Northcutt, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00813 (M.D. N.C., September 3, 2020), seeks equitable and injunctive relief for breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty and for violation the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Shoe Show is an American footwear retailer based in Concord, North Carolina. It operates over 1,100 shoe stores throughout the United States across 47 states under the brands Shoe Show, The Shoe Dept., The Shoe Dept. Encore, Shoebilee!, Burlington Shoes, and Shoe Show Mega. Sarah Smith, Michael Crisco and Jeffrey Morrow are retirees of Shoe Show and have invested in the retirement plan of which Shoe Show acted as the plan's sponsor and trustee. Defendants allegedly caused the Plans' participants to pay excessive recordkeeping expenses and unreasonably maintained investment advisors and consultants for the Plan despite the known availability of similar service providers with lower costs and/or better performance histories. [BN] Fuentes is represented by: Andrew L. Fitzgerald, Esq. FITZGERALD LITIGATION 119 Brookstown Ave., Ste. 402 Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 793-4365 Facsimile: (336) 793-4696 Email: andy@fitzgeraldlitigation.com SINCRO LLC: Bergeron Files Suit in California --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sincro, LLC. The case is styled as Jessica Bergeron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sincro, LLC, doing business as: Auto Avenue, a Delaware limited liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01815-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., Sept. 15, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other filed over FCC-Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Sincro, LLC, doing business as Auto Avenue is a car dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. Edelsberg Law 20900 Northeast 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com STAAR SURGICAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming October 19, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of STAAR Surgical Company ("STAAR" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: STAA) securities between February 26, 2020, and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your STAAR investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/staar-surgical-company/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On August 11, 2020, J Capital published a report, claiming the Company has overstated its sales in China by at least one-third (or $21.6 million), "meaning all of the company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." Citing over 75 interviews with former employees, site visits to China and Switzerland, as well as extensive review of public documents, the report concludes that STAAR reports fake sales revenues by overstating sales and then marking up actual marketing costs to hide "phantom" revenue. According to the report, the financial statements for STAAR's largest Chinese client indicate that it bought only about half as many lenses as the Company reports. On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.17, or over 6%, to close at $48.25 per share on August 11, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2) its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired STAAR securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 19, 2020 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] SUNRUN INC: Reaches $5.5MM Settlement Pact for Loftus Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunrun Inc. has entered reached an agreement with plaintiffs in the action styled, Loftus et al. v. Sunrun Inc. to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis for US$5.5 million in exchange for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. The settlement is subject to court-approval. On April 8, 2019, a putative class action captioned Loftus et al. v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01608, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The complaint generally alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") on behalf of an individual and putative classes of persons alleged to be similarly situated. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 26, 2019, adding defendant MediaMix 365, LLC, also asserting individual and putative class claims under the TCPA, along with claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act. In the amended version of their Complaint, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of themselves and the absent purported classes. On January 23, 2020, the Court held a status conference and set discovery deadlines. The Company said, "Most, if not all, of the claims asserted in the lawsuit relate to activities allegedly engaged in by third-party vendors, for which the Company denies any responsibility. The vendors are contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for losses related to the conduct alleged. While the Company believes that the claims against it are without merit, in view of the cost and risk of continuing to defend the action, it has reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis for US$5.5 million, which was accrued as of June 30, 2020, in exchange for a release of all claims that were or could have been asserted in the litigation. The settlement is subject to court-approval." Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. It also sells solar energy systems and products, such as panels and racking, as well as solar leads generated to customers. The company markets and sells its products through direct-to-consumer approach across online, retail, mass media, digital media, canvassing, field marketing, and referral channels, as well as its partner network. Sunrun Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. THGPP LLC: Jaquez Asserts Breach of ADA in New York --------------------------------------------------- THGPP, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THGPP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-07590 (S.D. N.Y., Sept. 16, 2020). THGPP, LLC is engaged in weight management and sports nutrition products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Marcus & Zelman, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com TILLY'S INC: Bid for Class Certification in Ward Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2020, that the motion for class certification filed in Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, is pending. In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various violations of California's wage and hour laws. The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted the company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against us and dismissed the complaint. Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal. In February 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff's allegations stated a claim. In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the Court of Appeal's decision. The California Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeal's decision. Since the case was remanded back to the trial court, the parties have been engaged in discovery. In March 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. In July 2020, the company filed its opposition to the motion for class certification. The plaintiff;s reply brief in support of the motion for class certification is due in September 2020. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing of the motion for class certification. Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will continue to do so." Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses; and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses, headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others. Tilly's, Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. TOPGOLF: Former Employees File Class Action Over BIPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that former employees of Topgolf brought a putative class action against the company for allegedly violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), claiming that employees were required to track shifts using a fingerprint-scan system and that Topgolf disclosed fingerprint data to a third-party vendor. On Thursday, Judge Edmond E. Chang of the Northern District of Illinois filed an opinion denying in part and granting in part the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court, while denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs claimed that, during the class period, Topgolf used this biometric fingerprint-scan system "to prevent one employee from clocking in for a different employee." According to the plaintiffs, by using this system, the defendant "‘captured, collected and stored' their fingerprint data," which they disclosed to "a third-party time-keeping vendor." Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that Topgolf "never provided (them) any written disclosures about the collection, retention, destruction, use, or dissemination of his fingerprint data," nor did the defendant obtain consent to collect this data. In October 2019, Topgolf removed the suit to federal court, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the BIPA claims. Afterward, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, stating that "the amount in controversy requirements have not been met" and that the defendant "improperly aggregated" the value of the claims. The plaintiffs alleged that the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) removal is insufficient because the defendant "included the value of claims for which the proposed class members lack Article III standing." The judge noted that "only the amount-in-controversy requirement is in dispute." Topgolf must show that individual claims exceed $75,000 and that the class amount exceeds $5 million. However, the plaintiffs claimed that Topgolf failed to meet this requirement for diversity jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction under CAFA because Topgolf erred by including values for the five BIPA claims that the proposed class would not have Article III standing. As a result, the plaintiffs argued that these should be remanded, since they would not be enough to bring the suit over the CAFA minimum. Topgolf argued that the plaintiffs' allegations "failed to meet these requirements because all of the BIPA violations that they allege constitute unintentional, and thus ‘accidental,' injuries that arose." However, the court pointed out that numerous courts have determined that this act does not preempt BIPA allegations, and this court agrees with this conclusion. The plaintiffs sued because their statutory rights were violated, which would not be preempted in the Worker's Compensation Act. The court also found the defendant's argument that these injuries were "accidental" unconvincing and the claims are not preempted by the Workers' Compensation Act. The court also rejected contentions that the plaintiffs' complaints were barred by a statute of limitations. The motion to remand was denied as it pertains to BIPA provisions prohibiting the collection of biometric data without permission, as well as the disclosure of said data. Remand to state court was granted for claims that the company failed to provide a biometric data retention policy. Topgolf's motion to dismiss is denied. Topgolf is represented by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. The plaintiffs are represented by Werman Salas P.C. and The Fish Law Firm, P.C. [GN] ULTRA PETROLEUM: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ultra-petroleum-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html) on Sept. 1 disclosed that it filed a class action seeking to represent purchasers of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTCMKTS: UPLCQ) common stock during the period between April 13, 2017 and August 8, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the District of Colorado and is captioned Subramanian v. Watford, No. 20-cv-2652. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ultra Petroleum common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-ultra-petroleum-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html. The Ultra Petroleum class action lawsuit charges certain of Ultra Petroleum's current and former officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ultra Petroleum is an oil and gas development company with primary assets in the Pinedale and Jonah fields of the Green River Basin of southwest Wyoming. Over 80% of the Company's revenues have historically been derived from the development and sale of natural gas. On May 14, 2020, Ultra Petroleum filed for bankruptcy protection and is not named as a defendant in the action. In April 2017, at the beginning of the Class Period, Ultra Petroleum exited a court-supervised reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. According to defendants, Ultra Petroleum exited the bankruptcy in "growth mode." Defendants stated that the Company was poised to maximize the value of its substantial oil and gas deposits (which they valued at $4.19 billion, including $1.5 billion of proved undeveloped reserves) through ramped up production in 2017 and 2018 and that Ultra Petroleum was on track to produce between 290 and 300 billion cubic feet equivalent ("Bcfe") in 2017, with 25% production growth over these figures in 2018. Defendants represented that the Company had the financial and production flexibility to weather even a low-commodity-price environment and was set to ramp up well development with 10 rigs operating by 2018 on the back of an estimated $788 million capital budget. Accretive to this plan was the launch of a horizontal well drilling program, which Ultra Petroleum executives claimed was set to significantly expand the production capabilities of the Company's existing wells. The complaint alleges that these and similar statements issued by defendants during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made. Throughout the Class Period, defendants, inter alia: (i) materially overstated the value of Ultra Petroleum's oil and gas reserves; (ii) materially misrepresented the Company's ability to ramp up production and its financial flexibility; (iii) failed to disclose the Company's extreme sensitivity to even a modest decline in natural gas prices; and (iv) concealed significant setbacks in the Company's vaunted horizontal well drilling program. Then, beginning in August 2017, soon after exiting bankruptcy, Ultra Petroleum began issuing a series of revelations demonstrating that it could not grow production by any meaningful amount and that its wells were worth a fraction of the values previously represented. Finally, on August 9, 2019, Ultra Petroleum announced disappointing results for the second quarter of 2019, disclosing that total revenues for the quarter had decreased 18%, that the Company's horizontal well program had been effectively halted, and that it was lowering its 2019 projected capital investments to a range of $260 million to $290 million and annual production to a range of 238 to 244 Bcfe. On this news, the price of Ultra Petroleum stock declined 31% to just $0.09 per share and continued to fall to just $0.01 per share, 99% below the stock's Class Period high. On August 22, 2019, Ultra Petroleum stock was delisted. And in May 2020, the Company was forced to enter bankruptcy proceedings yet again in order to seek a court-ordered reorganization. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ULTRA PETROLEUM: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 1 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Ultra Petroleum Corp. (OTC: UPLCQ) between April 13, 2017 and August 8, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ultra investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Ultra class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1942.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Ultra's proved reserves were materially overstated and, therefore, worth hundreds of millions of dollars less than represented; (2) Ultra's proved undeveloped reserves were of de minimis value because they contained low quality deposits that lacked a commercially viable path to development; (3) Ultra was unable to meet the production and development estimates provided to investors and such estimates lacked a reasonable basis; (4) Ultra was unable to withstand even a modest downturn in the price of natural gas because, inter alia, Ultra's business had less financial and production flexibility than claimed; (5) Ultra did not have the technical or financial capabilities or available asset base to sustainably grow its oil and natural gas production by any meaningful amount; and (6) Ultra lacked the production capabilities or asset base necessary to meaningfully grow production through horizontal well drilling, and initial test wells were not representative of the Company's actual horizontal well prospects. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 2, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1942.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Robert Anderson Class Action Amended ------------------------------------------------------------ Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, on Sept. 1 disclosed that a new victim of Dr. Robert E. Anderson has come forward in an amended class action complaint against the University of Michigan, seeking to serve as a representative for the thousands of other students who were put in harm's way by the school physician from 1968 to 2003. The amended complaint was filed by Lieff Cabraser, The Miller Law Firm, and Sauder Schelkopf, who were previously appointed as interim class counsel by Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, who is overseeing the litigation. In the amended complaint, the survivor, who is referred to as Richard Roe, alleges that Dr. Anderson abused him during four visits for annual physicals while he was an undergraduate student participating in varsity athletics in the 1980s. During the course of each physical examination, Anderson touched, fondled, and manipulated Richard Roe's genitals extensively. Anderson always offered a rationale for the abuse, claiming he was demonstrating a way to "self-check for testicular cancer." Roe joins a John Doe, who also alleged abuse during six visits with Dr. Anderson from 1989 to 1993 and was the first proposed class representative on the original class action complaint filed earlier this year. In addition to these two class representatives, Lieff Cabraser and class co-counsel have been contacted or retained by several dozen other survivors who prefer to have their rights and interests protected by the class action complaint versus filing their own individual lawsuit. The class action seeks to represent all students who were seen by Anderson at U of M between 1968 and 2003. If certified by the court, Doe and Roe would prosecute claims on behalf of the class of other former U of M students who were abused by Dr. Anderson, without them needing to hire a lawyer or filing their own separate lawsuit. The class action not only seeks monetary damages from U of M, but uniquely also seeks injunctive relief to force U of M to make institutional changes to prevent this type of abuse from ever occurring again. Lieff Cabraser and Sauder Schelkopf, LLC previously served as co-class counsel in a case against the University of Southern California involving a student health gynecologist accused of abusing patients over a nearly three-decade period. A $215 million settlement approved last year provided compensation for every patient of the physician and additional payments for those who wanted to tell their story, while keeping their identities strictly confidential. USC also had to agree to implement certain reforms, with independent overseers who could raise concerns with the court if the goals and requirements of the settlement are not being met. "For every victim of Dr. Anderson who is ready to come forward, there are dozens if not hundreds of others that understandably are not in a place where they feel comfortable doing so," said Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case. "Victims have long been denied choice. This class action provides an option for survivors who may not want to hire a lawyer and put their name on a lawsuit, but still want to be acknowledged, hold U of M accountable, and see the school change for the better." The amended class action complaint also includes for the first time deposition testimony of Thomas Easthope, former U of M Vice President of Student Life and direct supervisor of Anderson, taken in this matter on July 28, 2020 and August 4, 2020. This information is redacted per a protective order that designates the entirety of Mr. Easthope's deposition as confidential until the earlier of October 31, 2020 or the day of the public disclosure of the WilmerHale independent investigative report. From 1968 until 2003, Anderson was employed by U of M as a physician. During his tenure at U of M, Anderson held numerous titles, including Director of Health Services, Senior Physician with Health Services, and Athletic Senior Physician. In his role as Athletic Physician, Anderson treated members of the wrestling, football, and hockey teams for nearly every medical ailment, complaint, and injury as their U of M assigned internist. He served as one of their first medical points of contact no matter the injury or ailment at issue, including everything from a cold to broken bones. Indeed, student-athletes were required to see Anderson even when they were not injured; regular physicals and checkups with Anderson were required for all student-athletes. In all of these roles, and throughout the entirety of his employment with U of M, Anderson regularly and repeatedly sexually assaulted, abused, and molested students by engaging in nonconsensual sexual touching, assault, and harassment, including but not limited to medically unnecessary genital manipulation and digital anal penetration. CONTACT: Annika K. Martin Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP akmartin@lchb.com www.lieffcabraser.com 212 355-9500 [GN] US PREMIUM: NBP Faces 2 Suits over Product Label Misrepresentation ------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Premium Beef, LLC said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2020 that National Beef Packing Company, LLC ("NBP") is a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed on January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of its products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. The cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County. These cases were subsequently removed to the United States District Court, New Mexico District. The plaintiffs seek treble damages and other relief and attorneys' fees. The Company said that NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the cases and intends to defend these cases vigorously. The Company further said, "There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows." U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets. U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. US PREMIUM: NBP Still Faces 4 Antitrust Class Suits in Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Premium Beef, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2020, that National Beef Packing Company, LLC ("NBP") remains a defendant in four class action lawsuits in the United States District Court, Minnesota District, alleging that it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws (the "Antitrust Cases"). The Antitrust Cases are entitled: * In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019; * Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on April 26, 2019; * Samuels v. Cargill, Inc., et al, which was filed originally o April 26, 2019; and * Erbert & Gerbert's, Inc. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on June 18, 2020. The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys' fees. The Company said that NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the Antitrust Cases and intends to defend these cases vigorously. The Company further stated, "There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on NBP's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows." U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, together with its subsidiaries, operates an integrated cattle processing and beef marketing enterprise in the United States. The company, through its interests in National Beef Packing Company, LLC, processes and markets fresh and chilled boxed beef, ground beef, beef by products, and consumer ready beef and pork, and wet blue leather for domestic and international markets. U.S. Premium Beef, LLC was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. VARIAN MEDICAL: Zimmer Files Suit Over Siemens Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- David Zimmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc., R. Andrew Eckert, Dow R. Wilson, David J. Illingworth, Jean-Luc Butel, Anat Ashkenazi, Regina E. Dugan, Judy Bruner, Jeffrey R. Balser, Phil Febbo and Michelle Le Beau,, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06266 (N.D. Cal., September 3, 2020) seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed merger between Varian and Siemens Healthineers AG, rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the proposed transaction, Varian's shareholders stand to receive $177.50 in cash for each share of Varian common stock they own. According to the complaint, the registration statement for the merger failed to include critical financial forecasts performed by Varian's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, including the line items used to calculate these non-GAAP metrics or a reconciliation of these non-GAAP projections to the most comparable GAAP measures and failed to define Adjusted EBITDA, reconcile Adjusted EBITDA to its most comparable GAAP measure, or disclose the line items used to calculate Adjusted EBITDA that should support the fairness opinions in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal needed by the shareholders to make an informed decision on the merger deal. Varian is a manufacturer of medical devices and software for treating cancer and other medical conditions with radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic body radiotherapy, brachytherapy and proton therapy. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com VAXART INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Vaxart, Inc. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Vaxart, Inc. (NASDAQ:VXRT) Class Period: June 25, 2020 - July 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 23, 2020 The VXRT lawsuit alleges that Vaxart, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) Vaxart exaggerated the prospects of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate, including its purported role or involvement in Operation Warp Speed ('OWS'), a program which commits the federal government to massive funding for the development of COVID-19 vaccines; 2) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate had no reasonable prospect for mass production and marketing and was not among the companies chosen to receive significant financial support from OWS to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses; and 3) Vaxart's COVID-19 vaccine candidate was merely selected to participate in preliminary U.S. government studies to determine potential areas for possible OWS partnership and support. Learn about your recoverable losses in VXRT: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/vaxart-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9220&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 E-mail: jk@kleinstocklaw.com [GN] VERINT SYSTEMS: Bid for Leave to Appeal in Suit vs. Unit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2020, that the motion for leave to appeal in the Tel Aviv suit against the company's subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited, is pending. In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI) (Case Number 1335/09). Also, in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms. Roni Katriel, commenced similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited (Case Number 3444/09). In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended filing delay period that is discussed in our and CTI’s historical public filings. On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI’s shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution"). In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse, Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties. As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the District Court did not rule on this motion. In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to Comverse, Inc. On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell company in a merger transaction (the "CTI Merger"). As a result of the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing legal actions. However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, the company, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse, Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the ocmpany may suffer in our capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal actions. Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the time CTI suspended option exercises. The court also ruled that the merits of the case would be evaluated under New York law. As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff, Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert opinions. Following two unsuccessful rounds of mediation in mid to late 2018 and in mid-2019, the proceedings resumed. On April 16, 2020, the District Court accepted plaintiffs' application to amend the motion to certify a class action and set deadlines for filing amended pleadings by the parties. CTI submitted a motion to appeal the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court, as well as a motion to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending the resolution of the appeal. On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court granted the motion for a stay. On July 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their response on the merits of the motion for leave to appeal, and the parties are waiting for further instructions or decisions from the Supreme Court. Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Melville, New York. VILLA COLOMBO: Faces $25MM Covid-19 Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Diamond and Diamond Lawyers on Sept. 10 disclosed that National Personal Injury Firm, Diamond and Diamond, has partnered with Jillian M. Siskind and Associates in a class action suit seeking justice for COVID-19 victims. A new claim has been filed on behalf of deceased residents (and their families) formerly housed at Villa Colombo retirement facilities. The lawsuit claims aggregate damages of $25 million, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $10 million. Representative Plaintiff, Domenica Gusciglio, heads the growing class. Gusciglio lost her Mother, Anne Sforza, due to negligence at the hands of the long-term care facility. Self-described as "the heart of the GTA's Italian community", the facility seeks to enrich its residents' lives through services that honour their Italian heritage. The class action is brought forth on behalf of all persons who have lived, or are currently living, at Villa Colombo Seniors Centre. The class also includes the families of these individuals who may seek associated damages. The estimated size of the class and subclass is unknown at this time but is estimated to be in the hundreds of individuals. "In speaking to the Plaintiffs I learned that they selected this particular facility because they were proud of their heritage," said Darryl Singer, Head of Commercial and Civil litigation at Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. "The facility promised to treat residents as family but this is not borne out by the facts of this case." The plaintiffs allege that the facilities lacked both proper sanitation protocols and directives, as well as strategies for containment of the virus. The action also alleges that measures to keep residents safe were not communicated to families of residents. As such, there was a failure to mitigate against potential infection of COVID-19. "So many families like mine trusted that our most vulnerable loved ones, our Nonnas and Nonnos, would be protected and cared for at Villa Colombo and by the guidelines put in place by Public Health," said Plaintiff Domenica Gusciglio. "We are nothing short of devastated." This is Diamond and Diamond's second COVID-19 related, class action filing against a privately-owned provider of senior care services. Earlier this year, the firm took action against both Revera Inc. (and its subsidiaries), as well as Sienna Senior Living Inc. "All of the plaintiffs have described to me the heartbreak of having to watch their loved ones be treated with such negligent and substandard care," said Lawyer, Jillian Siskind. "They trusted this facility and feel they were let down in a very significant way." The firms invite those who feel they have experienced insufficient care at the hands of a nursing home facility to contact Diamond and Diamond. The lawyers expect that further class action suits will be launched in the near future as the pandemic continues to spread across the nation. [GN] YELP INC: Securities Class Action in California Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit filed against Yelp Inc. certain of its officers remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020. In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of the Company's officers. The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018, alleges violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations on February 9, 2017. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part on November 27, 2018. On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a class in this action. Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. YODLEE INC: Emerson Firm Announces Continued Investigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Firm, PLLC, a law firm in Houston, Texas, announces that it is continuing its investigation regarding the alleged mishandling of individuals' personal financial data by Yodlee, Inc. ("Yodlee"). One of our colleagues recently filed a class action complaint on behalf of individuals whose financial information was collected and stored by the fintech app Yodlee. The defendants are Yodlee and Envestnet, Inc. ("Envestnet"). Yodlee is aa subsidiary of Envestnet which provides unified wealth management technology and products to financial advisors and institutions. Their flagship product is an advisory platform that integrates the services and software used by financial advisors in wealth management. Yodlee is one of the largest financial data aggregators in the world. Its business focuses on selling highly sensitive data, such as bank balances and credit card transaction histories, to advertisers, investors, researchers, and other third parties. Yodlee's software is designed to act as an intermediary to connect bank accounts to apps such as PayPal; however, users are not informed that Yodlee gathers their information, or that Yodlee stores their information long after using it to facilitate the connection. Reports have revealed that Yodlee is mishandling the data by distributing it in unencrypted plain text files. As a result, class members are at risk for fraud and identity theft. If you are a person in California or elsewhere in the U.S. whose accounts at a financial institution were accessed by Yodlee using login credentials obtained through Yodlee's software incorporated in a mobile or web-based fintech app that enables payments or money transfers then you may be affected. If you are concerned about your rights in this situation, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Emerson, via e-mail to John G. Emerson (jemerson@emersonfirm.com) or at the following toll-free number: 800-551-8649. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***