/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201109.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 9, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 224
Headlines
88 ACRES FOODS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Pays $100,000 as Attorneys' Fees in Bansal
ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM: Peterson Suit Transferred to Minnesota
ANSONIA CREDIT: DS Express Carriers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
AVIA DENTAL PLAN: Burbon Alleges Violation under ADA
BADGER MUTUAL INSURANCE: Smeez Inc. Files Suit in Illinois
BFY BRANDS INC: Romero Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
BOATTEST.COM LLC: Winegard Alleges ADA Violation
BRASKEM S.A.: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
BRIMHALL FOODS CO: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA
CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING: Mayen Files Suit in California
CALIFORNIA PAPER PRODUCTS: Faces Casillas Class Action
COLONY CREDIT: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Motion Deadline
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
DENTALPLANS.COM: Burbon Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
DENTEMAX LLC: Burbon Assert Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Zalazar Suit Transferred to Kern County
FREDDIE MAC: Appeal in Ohio Public Employees Suit Ongoing
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Corvette Wheel Damage
GOLAR LNG: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Motion Deadline
IAG: Settles Swann Insurance Add-On Sales Class Action
JASPER HILL FARM: Romero Asserts Breach under Disabilities Act
MA MEDINA FARM: Mayen Files Suit in California
MCMILLAN SHAKESPEARE: Settles Davantage Motor Warranty Class Suit
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
MICROSOFT: Stick Drift Class Action Now Includes Elite Series 2
MIDLAND FUNDING: McGinnis Files Suit under FDCPA
MOUNTAIN RUN SOLUTIONS: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
NANO-X IMAGING: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
NEXTCURE INC: Howard Smith Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
NIKOLA CORP: Scott+Scott Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Alerts of Class Action Filing
OYO HOTELS: Shree Veer Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
PATRIOT HEALTH: Burbon Alleges Violation under ADA
PEABODY ENERGY: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
PG&E CORP: Appeal from Dismissal of PSPS Suit Ongoing
PG&E CORP: Bid to Dismiss Vataj Suit Under Submission
PG&E CORP: Motions to Dismiss PERA New Mexico Suit Pending
POLAROID AMERICA: Romero Asserts Breach under ADA in New York
PRECIGEN INC: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Filing
PRECIGEN INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
PRINTS AND SIGNS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
RICOH IMAGING: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
RIPPLE: Court Narrows Claims in Sostack Securities Fraud Suit
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
SCRANTON, PA: Feb. 2021 Hearing Set for Trash Fee Class Action
SLEEP DATA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Alerts of Class Action Filing
SPICE & TEA EXCHANGE: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
STEELE COUNTY, MN: Coffey Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
STICKER MULE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 30 Motion Deadline
THOMSON INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
TOMALES BAY FOODS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
TORRES FARM: Mayen Files Suit in California
TOWN OF OAKVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Community Flooding
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Consolidated Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Defenders Law Center Files Suit in Calif.
UNITED STATES: Justice Dept. Prevails in Plymouth Jail Lawsuit
WING ENTERPRISES: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds Nov. 23 Motion Deadline
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP: Winegard Alleges Violation under ADA
*********
88 ACRES FOODS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
88 Acres Foods, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 88 Acres Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09215 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
88 Acres Foods, Inc. is a Food manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
AGROFRESH SOLUTIONS: Pays $100,000 as Attorneys' Fees in Bansal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on October 30, 2020, that
the Company has agreed to pay $100,000 to plaintiff's counsel for
attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for
attorneys' fees and expenses in the purported stockholder class
action suit entitled, Bansal v. Campbell, et al., C.A. No.
2020-548-JRS.
On June 13, 2020, AgroFresh Solutions, Inc. entered into an
investment agreement with an affiliate of certain investment funds
managed by Paine Schwartz Partners, LLC ("PSP") pursuant to which
PSP agreed to purchase in a private placement an aggregate of
$150,000,000 of new preferred stock of the Company.
On July 6, 2020, AgroFresh filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") a Definitive Proxy Statement (the
"Proxy Statement") on Schedule 14A, which served to solicit
AgroFresh stockholder approval of certain matters related to the
Proposed Transaction for purposes of complying with the Nasdaq
Listing Rules.
On July 7, 2020, the members of AgroFresh's board of directors were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") by one of the
Company's stockholders.
The suit is captioned Bansal v. Campbell, et al., C.A. No.
2020-548-JRS.
The complaint alleged that AgroFresh's directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, good faith and/or disclosure by
failing to disclose to AgroFresh's stockholders all material
information necessary to make an informed decision in connection
with the Proposed Transaction.
Among other remedies, the plaintiff sought to hold AgroFresh's
directors liable for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties.
After the complaint was filed, and without admitting that the
allegations in the complaint had any merit, the Company determined
to include additional disclosures concerning the Proposed
Transaction in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 22, 2020, to
moot plaintiff's claims.
On July 29, 2020, the Court approved a notice under which the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to
himself only, but without prejudice as to any other putative class
member.
The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating an anticipated application of plaintiff's counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the supplemental disclosures included in the Form
8-K filed on July 22, 2020.
Without admitting that the allegations in the complaint had any
merit, the Company subsequently agreed to pay $100,000 to
plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full
satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the
action.
The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment
on, the payment of the attorneys’ fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.
Agrofresh Solutions, Inc. is a Pennsylvania-headquartered global
innovator and provider of science-based solutions, data-driven
technologies and experience-backed services to enhance the quality
and extend the shelf life of fresh produce.
ALLINA HEALTH SYSTEM: Peterson Suit Transferred to Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Peterson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allina Health System and
Blackbaud, Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the Hennepin
County, Fourth Judicial District with the assigned Case No.
27-CV-20-13221 to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota (DMN) on Nov. 3, 2020, and assigned Case No.
0:20-cv-02275-NEB-BRT.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
filed pursuant to a Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Allina Health is a not-for-profit health care system based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Allina owns or operates 12 hospitals and
more than 90 clinics throughout Minnesota and western
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
A. L. Brown, Esq.
Capitol City Law Group, LLC
287 East Sixth Street, Suite 20
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Tel: (651) 705-8580
Fax: (651) 705-8581
Email: a.l.brown@cclawg.com
- and -
Joshua R. Williams, Esq.
2836 Lyndale Avenue South, Suite 160
Minneapolis, MN 55408
Tel: (612) 486-5540
Email: jwilliams@jrwilliamslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph G Schmitt, Esq.
Nilan Johnson Lewis PA
120 S 6th St Ste 400
Mpls, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 305-7577
Fax: (612) 305-7501
Email: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com
ANSONIA CREDIT: DS Express Carriers Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as DS Express Carriers, Inc., on behalf of
itself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ansonia
Credit Data, Inc. and Equifax, Inc., Defendants, was transferred
from the Huron County Common Pleas Court with the assigned Case No.
CVH20200729 to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (Toledo) on October 27, 2020, and assigned Case No.
3:20-cv-02428-JZ.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Assault Libel &
Slander.
Ansonia Credit Data, Inc. is located in Olympia, WA, United States
and is part of the Credit Reporting Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven B. Beranek, Esq.
Corsaro & Associates
28039 Clemens Road
Westlake, OH 44145
Tel: (440) 871-4022
Fax: (440) 871-9567
Email: sberanek@corsarolaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Kendall Merical, Esq.
Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani- Columbus
41 South High Street, Ste. 2495
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 340-5558
Fax: (614) 360-2130
Email: jmerical@grsm.com
- and -
Gregory D. Brunton, Esq.
Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani- Columbus
41 South High Street, Ste. 2495
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 340-5558
Fax: (614) 360-2130
Email: gbrunton@grsm.com
AVIA DENTAL PLAN: Burbon Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Avia Dental Plan, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Luc Burbon, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Avia Dental Plan, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05187 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020).
Avia Dental offers dental plans for families, individuals, groups,
and seniors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
The Marks Law Firm, PC
175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Tel: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
BADGER MUTUAL INSURANCE: Smeez Inc. Files Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Badger Mutual
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Smeez, Inc. d/b/a Big
Daddy's Disco Diner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Badger Mutual Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01132 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 27, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
over Diversity-Breach of Contract.
Badger Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance coverages for
businesses, families, and owners.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott J. Helfand, Esq.
Husch Blackwell LLP - Chicago
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: (312) 655-1500
Fax: (312) 655-1501
Email: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com
BFY BRANDS INC: Romero Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------
BFY Brands, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Josue
Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BFY Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09220
(S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
BFY Brands, Inc. produces and supplies packaged food products. The
Company offers a range of corn, rice, and potato-based snack
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BOATTEST.COM LLC: Winegard Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Boattest.com, Llc is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Jay
Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Boattest.com, Llc doing business as: www.boattest.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05301 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
BoatTEST.com is a provider of third party video tests and reviews
of new boats and engines as well as two opt-in marine
newsletters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
Law Office of Mitchell S. Segal P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevardm Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Tel: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
BRASKEM S.A.: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of Braskem S.A. (NYSE: BAK) between
May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of
the important October 26, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Braskem investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Braskem class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1921.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) Braskem's salt mining operations were unsafe
and presented a significant danger to surrounding areas, including
nearly two thousand properties; (2) the foregoing foreseeably
increased the risk that Braskem would be subjected to remedial
liabilities, including, but not limited to, increased governmental
and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement, significant monetary
and reputational damage, and/or the permanent closure of one or
more of its salt mining operations; (3) accordingly, earnings
generated from Braskem's salt mining operations were unsustainable;
(4) Braskem downplayed the true scope and severity of the Company's
liability with respect to its salt mining operations; and (5) as a
result, defendants' 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
26, 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-1921.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.
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.
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]
BRIMHALL FOODS CO: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA
-----------------------------------------------
Brimhall Foods Company, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Brimhall Foods Company, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-09222 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
Brimhall Food Company, Inc. manufactures packaged food products.
The Company offers potato chips, corn chips, pop corns, cheese
curls, and similar snacks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING: Mayen Files Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cal Central
Harvesting, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Mayen, and individual,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. BCV-20-102532 (Ca. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 28, 2020).
The type of suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
Cal Central Harvesting, Inc. is located in Shafter, CA, United
States and is part of the Farm Support Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Andrew Lipeles, Esq.
Lipeles Law Group, APC
880 Apollo St Ste 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 322-2211
Fax: (310) 322-2252
Email: kevin@kallaw.com
CALIFORNIA PAPER PRODUCTS: Faces Casillas Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Paper
Products LLC. The case is styled as Sergio Casillas, an individual,
on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. California Paper Products LLC and California
Staffing Solutions Inc., Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-102523 (Ca.
Super. Ct., Oct. 28, 2020).
The type of the suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.
California Paper Products LLC is located in Shafter, CA, United
States and is part of the Wholesale Sector Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Melmed Law Group P.C.
1801 Century Park E
Ste 850, Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 824-3828
Fax: (310) 862-6851
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
COLONY CREDIT: Klein Law Reminds of Nov. 9 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Oct. 11 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Fennec
Pharmaceuticals 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.
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC)
Class Period: February 11, 2020 - August 10, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 2, 2020
The complaint alleges that during the class period Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing
facilities for PEDMARK, the Company's sole product candidate, did
not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a
result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be
delayed; and (3) 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.
Learn about your recoverable losses in FENC:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?id=9997&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.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Credit
Acceptance 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.
Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ:CACC)
CACC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 1, 2019
- August 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/credit-acceptance-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=10000&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Credit
Acceptance Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was
topping off the pools of loans that they packaged and securitized
with higher-risk loans; (ii) Credit Acceptance was making
high-interest subprime auto loans to borrowers that the Company
knew borrowers would be unable to repay; (iii) the borrowers were
subject to hidden finance charges, resulting in loans exceeding the
usury rate ceiling mandated by state law; (iv) Credit Acceptance
took excessive and illegal measures to collect debt from defaulted
borrowers; (v) as a result, the Company was likely to face
regulatory scrutiny and possible penalties from various regulators
or lawsuits; and (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and adherence to appropriate laws and regulations 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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
DENTALPLANS.COM: Burbon Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Dentalplans.com, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Luc Burbon, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dentalplans.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05182 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020).
The Company connects students, seniors, parents, families, and
businesses online to compare dental savings plans in their area and
find plans that fit their dental care needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
The Marks Law Firm, PC
175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Tel: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
DENTEMAX LLC: Burbon Assert Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dentemax, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Luc
Burbon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Dentemax, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-05190 (E.D.
N.Y., Oct. 28, 2020).
DenteMax, LLC, located in Southfield, Michigan, manages the
nation's largest leasable dental PPO network with more than 135,000
dentist access points and serves more than 5 million members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
The Marks Law Firm, PC
175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Tel: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
ESPARZA ENTERPRISES: Zalazar Suit Transferred to Kern County
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Juana Guerrero Ramirez, Julio Mayen and Cesar
Zalazar, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Esparza Enterprises, Inc. and Gene Wheeler Farms,
Inc., Defendants, was transferred from the LA Superior Court with
the assigned Case No. 19STCV22552 to the Superior Court of
California, County of Kern, on October 28, 2020, and assigned Case
No. BCV-20-102514.
The case type of the suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.
Esparza Enterprises, Inc. provides staffing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Bibiyan Law Group, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd
Ste 500, Beverly Hills, CA
Tel: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
FREDDIE MAC: Appeal in Ohio Public Employees Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
plaintiff in Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie
Mac, Syron, Et Al., is taking an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the district court's judgment
favoring the company.
On October 9, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
Sixth Circuit.
This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management, and
the procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.
In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On July 20, 2016, the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's
dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the
plaintiff's motion for class certification. On January 23, 2019,
the Sixth Circuit denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal
that decision.
On September 17, 2020, the District Court granted a request from
the plaintiff for summary judgment and entered final judgment in
favor of Freddie Mac and the other defendants.
Freddie Mac said, "At present, it is not possible for us to predict
the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our
business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations.
In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
pre-trial litigation is inherently uncertain; while the District
Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, this
decision and the entry of final judgment in defendants' favor is
subject to appeal. In particular, absent a final resolution of
whether a class will be certified, the identification of a class if
one is certified, and the identification of the alleged statement
or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot
reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss. "
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a
public government-sponsored enterprise, headquartered in Tysons
Corner, Virginia. Freddie Mac is ranked No. 38 on the 2018 Fortune
500 list of the largest United States corporations by total
revenue. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Corvette Wheel Damage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a
consolidated class action against General Motors is seeking
millions of dollars for Corvette owners who have reported
unexpected and unpreventable wheel damage.
According to The Detroit Free Press, the lawsuit's 18 plaintiffs
are all current or former owners of 2015-2019 Corvette Z06 or Grand
Sport models. The class alleges that manufacturing defects led to
some low-mileage Corvettes suffering bent or broken wheel rims.
The lawsuit, says the Free Press, is keen to maintain that the
plaintiffs all owned relatively new vehicles, and were all safe
drivers. It claims that General Motors used inferior materials in
manufacturing and performed poor quality checks.
More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that GM used less material
than is ordinarily necessary to reduce "unsprung weight," or weight
which is not borne by a vehicle's suspension.
"As a result, the rims are not strong enough and crack and deform
under normal driving conditions," the class action states, adding
that rim defects can be felt while driving and increase the
possibility of motorists experiencing air leaks and tire
blow-outs.
Corvette Blogger notes that, in 2017, Corvette Chief Engineer Tadge
Juechter attempted to partially address the
cracked-wheel-phenomenon, saying that sometimes motorists make
contact with small, scarcely-noticeable obstacles which damage
their vehicles over time.
"A frequent sequence of events is that a wheel gets bent by a road
hazard but the damage is initially almost undetectable to the
driver," Juechter wrote on the Corvette Forum. "Maybe the driver
notices a little more vibration, but many times not if the wheel is
only slightly out-of-round. A wheel that is not perfectly round
puts stress in the rim that varies with each wheel rotation. Over
time fatigue cracks can form after thousands or even millions of
cycles.
"I have actually experienced this myself," Juechter said,
explaining that, because the initial damage is so minor, motorists
are often not able to recall any one incident that may have damaged
their Corvette.
While General Motors has yet to provide a comprehensive statement
in response to the consolidated class, a spokesperson did tell the
Free Press that the company has no open safety recalls for
2015-2019 Corvettes -- and does not plan to issue any.
In GM's view, the spokesperson said, the lawsuit's allegations of
wheel or rim damage are an expected consequence of ordinary
wear-and-tear.
The company also notes that all General Motors dealers offer Tire
and Wheel Protection packages to prospective customers.
However, the lawsuit cited a review of the 2017 Grand Sport
published in Car and Driver. In its review, the magazine reported
that it had to repair or replace a half-dozen damaged wheels in
just under 40,000 miles. The total cost for the repairs amounted to
more than $4,000, which GM refused to cover under warranty.
"Customers regularly paid over $900 per wheel to replace one
cracked wheel with an equally defective replacement wheel," the
class action alleges.
Attorney Tarek Zohdy, senior counsel with L.A.-based Capstone Law,
would not tell the Detroit Free Press how much his firm is seeking
for affected Corvette owners.
"We are consumer advocates and look forward to vindicating the
rights of all consumers who purchased one of these vehicles with
defective rimes," Zodhy said. "Our only goal is to ensure that
owners receive what they bargained for." [GN]
GOLAR LNG: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Golar LNG Limited (NASDAQ:GLNG)
between April 30, 2020 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 23, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Golar investors under the federal securities
laws. 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 23, 2020.
To join the Golar class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1958.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.
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) certain employees, including the CEO of Hygo Energy Transition
Ltd. f/k/a Golar Power Limited ("Hygo"), had bribed third parties,
thereby violating anti-bribery policies; (2) as a result, the
Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and possible
penalties; (3) as a result of the foregoing reputational harm,
Hygo's valuation ahead of its IPO would be significantly impaired;
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
23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1958.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.
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.
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]
IAG: Settles Swann Insurance Add-On Sales Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that IAG will report an earnings
impact of less than $50 million after settling a class action
brought over add-on products sold through vehicle and motorcycle
dealerships.
The insurer has agreed to pay $138 million under the settlement,
subject to Federal Court approval, with the after-tax impact on the
half-year result to be reduced by insurance recoveries.
The matter was brought against subsidiaries Swann Insurance and
Insurance Australia Limited by legal firm Johnson Winter &
Slattery, with litigation funding from Balance Legal Capital.
"The settlement is a great outcome for group members enabling them
to recover a significant proportion of their alleged financial loss
without going to court," the law firm said.
Swann exited the sale of the products through motor vehicle dealers
in 2016 and stopped selling through motorcycle outlets in the 2018
financial year.
Add-on product sales were scrutinised by the Hayne royal
commission, with IAG required to appear during hearings, while the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission has previously
ordered insurers to refund money paid for products that provided
little or no value. [GN]
JASPER HILL FARM: Romero Asserts Breach under Disabilities Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasper Hill Farm, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Jasper Hill Farm, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09226 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
Jasper Hill is a dynamic working farm, which includes Cellars at
Jasper Hill - an underground, cheese-aging facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MA MEDINA FARM: Mayen Files Suit in California
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ma Medina Farm Labor
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Mayen, and individual,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Ma Medina Farm Labor Services, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-102530 (Ca. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 28, 2020).
The type of suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited.
M.A. Medina Farm Labor Services is located in Bakersfield,
California. This organization primarily operates in the General
Farms, Primarily Crop.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Andrew Lipeles, Esq.
Lipeles Law Group, APC
880 Apollo St Ste 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 322-2211
Fax: (310) 322-2252
Email: kevin@kallaw.com
MCMILLAN SHAKESPEARE: Settles Davantage Motor Warranty Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that listed fleet leasing company
McMillan Shakespeare has settled a motor warranty class action
against its subsidiary Davantage.
The business says "the settlement is without any admission of
liability and also subject to approval of the Federal Court".
McMillan Shakespeare declined to reveal the details of the
financial settlement except that it has set aside in the past
financial year a net charge of $2 million plus legal costs to
settle the matter. In its 2020 annual report, the business put the
post-tax class action provision for possible settlement at $5.1
million, including legal expenses.
A spokesman for the company also declined to provide details about
the types of warranty cover affected by the lawsuit, which
commenced in 2018.
Baker & McKenzie, the law firm that ran the class action, also
declined to comment when contacted by insuranceNEWS.com.au.
The settlement of the lawsuit comes more than a year after the
Federal Court ruled the product contracts with plaintiffs had been
"intended to operate to permit denial of full coverage" of repair
claims.
The ruling did not mention what warranty products have been sold to
the class action members. But it says the warranty agreements cover
49 distinct products with each offered pursuant to a separate
product disclosure statement.
In a separate decision in April, Justice Jonathan Beach denied the
plaintiffs access to relevant insurance policies held by McMillan
Shakespeare and its subsidiary Davantage, which had sold the
products. The lead plaintiff had applied for access to the
documents, saying it would help decide if it was commercially
viable to proceed with the lawsuit.
In the class action itself the plaintiffs sought orders that the
warranties they had bought were void, and wanted either the
restitution or a refund of the premium paid and interest on that
amount, regardless of whether claims were in fact met and the
contracts performed.
According to the court ruling the total amount paid by the
26,000-28,000 class action members for the warranty coverage was
about $32 million. [GN]
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 12 disclosed that class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Mesoblast
Limited. 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.
Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:MESO)
MESO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 16, 2019 -
October 1, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=10005&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Mesoblast Limited made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) comparative analyses
between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did
not support the effectiveness of the Company's lead product
candidate, remestemcel-L, for steroid refractory acute graft versus
host disease due to design differences between the four studies;
(2) as a result, the US Food and Drug Administration was reasonably
likely to require further clinical studies; (3) as a result, the
commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be
delayed; 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
www.zlk.com [GN]
MESOBLAST LIMITED: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Oct. 11 disclosed that class
action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Mesoblast
Limited. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Mesoblast Limited (NASDAQ:MESO)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/mesoblast-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=9996&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
Class Period: April 16, 2019 - October 1, 2020
Allegations against MESO include that: (1) comparative analyses
between Mesoblast's Phase 3 trial and three historical studies did
not support the effectiveness of the Company's lead product
candidate, remestemcel-L, for steroid refractory acute graft versus
host disease due to design differences between the four studies;
(2) as a result, the US Food and Drug Administration was reasonably
likely to require further clinical studies; (3) as a result, the
commercialization of remestemcel-L in the U.S. was likely to be
delayed; 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.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
MICROSOFT: Stick Drift Class Action Now Includes Elite Series 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vikki Blake, writing for Eurogamer, reports that an ongoing
class-action lawsuit against Microsoft for "stick drift" has been
amended to include specific reference to the company's most recent
Elite controllers, the Elite Series 2.
As spotted by our pals at VGC, the updated paperwork now adds seven
additional plaintiffs and asks that the case goes before a jury, as
well as appending more detail about the alleged defect.
The lawsuit further alleges that Microsoft "failed to disclose the
defect and routinely refuses to repair the controllers without
charge when the defect manifests" even though "a large volume of
consumers have been complaining about stick drift on Xbox One
controllers since at least 2014".
Microsoft was hit with a class-action lawsuit that claims its Xbox
One controllers - like Nintendo's Joy-Cons - suffer from "stick
drift" back in April. Filed in Washington by Donald McFadden, the
action maintains that customers paying to repair their controllers
after the 90-day warranty expires are allegedly paying to repair a
known fault.
McFadden alleges that his Xbox Elite controller -- which retails
for $180/GBP160 --demonstrated "drift" within a "short time", as
did his replacement controller "three or four months later". In
some cases, it's alleged controller movements are even registered
when the sticks are stationary and no-one is touching them.
"Microsoft lures consumers into purchasing the Xbox controllers by
touting the Xbox controllers as superior controllers that enhance
gameplay, describing the Elite controllers as the 'world's most
advanced controller' and emphasising the Xbox One joysticks and
buttons as possessing 'Ultimate Precision'," the lawsuit alleges.
"Microsoft does not disclose to consumers that the Xbox controllers
are defective, causing the joystick component to fail. Members of
the general public have the right to know the latent defects with
the Xbox controller components." [GN]
MIDLAND FUNDING: McGinnis Files Suit under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Funding LLC.
The case is styled as Kathleen S. McGinnis, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Midland Funding
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05370 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 27, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Funding, LLC is one of the nation's largest buyers of
unpaid debt. Debts from credit card companies, banks, or auto loans
are bought for pennies on the dollar by Midland Funding, LLC. MCM
is the debt collector that services those accounts.[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
MOUNTAIN RUN SOLUTIONS: Jones Alleges Violation under ADA
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mountain Run
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Sylvia Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Mountain Run Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00879-WKW-JTA (M.D. Ala., Oct. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Mountain Run Solutions LLC specializes in purchasing non-performing
receivables in all industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
NANO-X IMAGING: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Nov. 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law announces that securities fraud class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of Nano-X Imaging Ltd.
shareholders. Shareholders interested in representing the class of
wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to
speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the link
below.
Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ:NNOX)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT NNOX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/nano-x-imaging-ltd-loss-submission-form/?id=10438&from=1
Class Period: August 21, 2020 - September 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Nano-X's commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated;
(2) Nano-X's statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were
misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images
with images from competitors' machines; (3) Nano-X's submission to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admitted the Nanox System was
not original; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
NEXTCURE INC: Howard Smith Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 20, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased NextCure,
Inc. ("NextCure" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC) (a) securities
between November 5, 2019 and July 14, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); and/or (b) common stock pursuant or traceable to
NextCure's November 2019 secondary public offering ("SPO" or the
"Offering").
On January 13, 2020, NextCure disclosed that Eli Lilly and Company
had ended its collaboration agreement for the research and
development of the Company's leading product candidate, NC318, a
first-in-class immunomedicine targeting the Siglec-15
immunomodulatory receptor particularly for patients with advanced
or metastatic solid tumors.
On this news, NextCure's share price fell $4.70, or 8%, to close at
$52.00 per share on January 13, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on July 13, 2020, before the market opened, NextCure
announced that it was no longer planning to "advance the non-small
cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ovarian cancer cohorts in the stage 2
portion of the Simon 2-stage trial." The same day, the Company
announced that its Chief Medical Officer resigned.
On this news, NextCure's share price fell $9.73, or 54%, to close
at $8.15 per share on July 13, 2020, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed 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, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) NextCure possessed NC318 data that showed a
lack of efficacy and objective responses; (2) as a result, NC318
was not, in fact, effective in treating most tumor types; (3) as a
result, the NC318 application was proving to be limited (if even
useful at all); (4) as a result of the foregoing, there was a
significant realizable risk that NC318 would not be nearly as
popular as then-existing blockbuster drugs, such as Keytruda.
If you purchased NextCure securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]
NIKOLA CORP: Scott+Scott Reminds of Nov. 16 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of multiple class action lawsuits against Nikola Corporation
("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) and certain of its
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws. If you purchased Nikola securities between March 3, 2020 and
September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), you are
encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Joe Pettigrew for
additional information at (844) 818-6982 or
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is
November 16, 2020.
Nikola operates as a zero emissions transportation system
provider.
The lawsuits allege that Nikola made materially false and/or
misleading statements related to the Company's financial,
technological, and operational profile, exaggerating its existing
infrastructure and intellectual property portfolio, as well as its
capabilities as a hydrogen producer and hydrogen-electric-vehicle
producer.
On September 10, 2020, before the market opened, Hindenburg
Research published a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An
Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in
America." On this news, Nikola shares dropped 24% over the next two
trading days, to close at $32.13 on September 11, 2020.
On September 14, 2020, after the market closed, Bloomberg published
an article entitled "SEC Examining Nikola Over Short Seller's Fraud
Allegations," reporting that the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") was looking into the allegations in the Report.
On September 15, 2020, the Wall Street Journal reported that the
United States Department of Justice had joined the SEC's
investigation of Nikola. That same day, Hindenburg Research
published a second report on Nikola. On this news, the price of
Nikola stock fell 8.2% to close at $32.83.
On September 21, 2020, the New York Times reported that Nikola's
founder and executive chairman, Trevor Milton, had resigned. On
this news, the price of Nikola stock fell 19.3% to close at
$27.58.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Nikola securities between March 3, 2020 and
September 15, 2020, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
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.
Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169-1820
Tel No: (844) 818-6982
E-mail: jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Oct. 11 disclosed that class
action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Odonate
Therapeutics Inc. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ODT)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/odonate-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9998&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 16, 2020
Class Period: December 7, 2017 - April 21, 2020
Allegations against ODT include that: (i) the Company's orally
administered chemotherapy agent, tesetaxel, was not as safe or
well-tolerated as the Company had led investors to believe; (ii)
consequently, tesetaxel's commercial viability as a cancer
treatment was overstated; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
OYO HOTELS: Shree Veer Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shree Veer Corporation and Chief Hospitality
LLC, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. OYO Hotels Inc, Defendant, OYO Hotels Inc, Counter
Claimant v. Shree Veer Corporation On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Counter Defendant, was transferred from
the County Court at Law No. 3 in Dallas County, Texas with the
assigned Case No. CC-20-04729-C to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on October 28, 2020, and
assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-03268-L.
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Contract: Other
Contract filed pursuant to the Diversity-Breach of Contract.
OYO offers rooms with amenities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan L Van Shaw, Esq.
Law Offices of Van Shaw
2723 Fairmount
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 754-7110
Fax: (214) 754-7115
Email: van@shawlaw.net
- and -
David Welch, Esq.
Law Office of Van Shaw
2723 Fairmount
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 754-7110
Fax: (214) 754-7115
Email: david@shawlaw.net
- and -
Jeremy Beau Powell, Esq.
Law Offices of Van Shaw
2723 Fairmount Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 754-7110
Fax: (214) 754-7115
Email: beau@shawlaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Meagan Martin Powers, Esq.
Martin Powers & Counsel, PLLC
600 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Suite 234
Irving, TX 75062
Tel: (214) 612-6471
Fax: (214) 247-1155
Email: meagan@martinpowers.com
PATRIOT HEALTH: Burbon Alleges Violation under ADA
--------------------------------------------------
Patriot Health, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Luc Burbon, and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Patriot Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05183 (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 27, 2020).
Patriot Health, Inc. is a Health insurance agency in West Palm
Beach, Florid.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
The Marks Law Firm, PC
175 Varick Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Tel: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
PEABODY ENERGY: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Peabody
Energy Corporation ("Peabody" or "the Company") (NYSE:BTU) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 3,
2017 and October 28, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 27, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Peabody failed to follow appropriate
safety controls at its North Goonyella mine, placing it at a
heightened risk of being shut down. The Company followed a low-cost
plan to restart operations that did not address safety and
environmental concerns. The Queensland Mines Inspectorate ("QMI")
was likely to mandate a safer, more costly approach. The Company
suffered further delays reopening the mine based on this
difference. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Peabody, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
PG&E CORP: Appeal from Dismissal of PSPS Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in
the class action suit involving Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS)
has filed a notice of appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's decision
dismissing the complaint and has elected to have the appeal heard
by the District Court, rather than the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
On December 19, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California naming
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility).
The plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all
California residents and business owners who had their power shut
off by the Utility during the October 9, October 23, October 26,
October 28, or November 20, 2019 power outages and any subsequent
voluntary outages occurring during the course of litigation.
The plaintiff alleges that the necessity for the October and
November 2019 power shutoff events was caused by the Utility's
negligence in failing to properly maintain its electrical lines and
surrounding vegetation.
The complaint seeks up to $2.5 billion in special and general
damages, punitive and exemplary damages and injunctive relief to
require the Utility to properly maintain and inspect its power
grid. PG&E Corporation and the Utility believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
On January 21, 2020, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative strike the
class action allegations. The motion to dismiss and strike was
heard by the Bankruptcy Court on March 10, 2020, and on April 3,
2020, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order dismissing the action
without leave to amend, finding that the action was preempted under
the California Public Utilities Code.
On March 30, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion granting
the Utility's motion to dismiss this class action. The court held
that plaintiff's class action claims are preempted as a matter of
law by section 1759 of the California Public Utilities Code and
thus plaintiffs could not pursue civil damages.
The court stated that "any claim for damages caused by Public
Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events approved by the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), even if based on pre-existing
events that may or may not have contributed to the necessity of the
PSPS events, would interfere with the CPUC’s policy-making
decisions."
On April 6, 2020, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the
Bankruptcy Court decision dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff has
elected to have the appeal heard by the District Court, rather than
the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Plaintiff filed a designation of
the record and statement of the issues on April 20, 2020, and the
Utility had until May 4, 2020, 14 days thereafter, to file a
designation of any additional items.
On June 8, 2020, plaintiff filed its opening brief. The Utility
filed its opposition brief on July 6, 2020. Plaintiff's reply brief
was filed on August 4, 2020 with a request for oral argument. The
court has not yet ruled on plaintiff's request for oral argument.
The Utility is unable to determine the timing and outcome of this
proceeding.
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
PG&E CORP: Bid to Dismiss Vataj Suit Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the purported securities class action suit entitled, Vataj
v. Johnson et al. is currently under submission with the District
Court.
On October 25, 2019, a purported securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, entitled Vataj v. Johnson et al.
The complaint named as defendants a current director and certain
current and former officers of PG&E Corporation.
Neither PG&E Corporation nor Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the
Utility) was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged materially false and misleading statements
regarding PG&E Corporation's wildfire prevention and safety
protocols and policies, including regarding the Utility's public
safety power shutoffs, that allegedly resulted in losses and
damages to holders of PG&E Corporation's securities.
The complaint asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief,
attorneys' fees and other costs.
On February 3, 2020, the District Court granted a stipulation
appointing Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds, Ironworkers Locals
40,361 & 417 Union Security Funds and Robert Allustiarti co-lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of the plaintiffs' counsel,
and further ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule by
February 13, 2020. On February 20, 2020, the District Court issued
a scheduling order that required the amended complaint to be filed
by April 17, 2020.
On April 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting the same claims. The amended complaint added PG&E
Corporation and a former officer of PG&E Corporation as defendants,
and no longer asserts claims against the other two officers of PG&E
Corporation previously named in the action.
On May 15, 2020 the officer defendants filed their motion to
dismiss in Vataj. On June 19, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2020 the officer
defendants filed their reply. The motion is currently under
submission with the District Court.
As of October 28, 2020, PG&E Corporation had not yet been served
with this complaint.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility currently believe it is probable
that they will incur a loss in connection with this proceeding and
accordingly recorded a charge during the three months ended
September 30, 2020. PG&E Corporation and the Utility determined
that the amount of the charge recorded in connection with such loss
is not material and corresponds to the lower end of the range of
PG&E Corporation’s and the Utility’s reasonably estimable range
of losses. This amount is subject to change based on additional
information.
PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to reasonably estimate
the upper end of the range given the early stages of the
consolidated securities actions and the de-energization class
action, including but not limited to, the fact that the
defendants’ motions to dismiss have not yet been decided and no
discovery has occurred.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
PG&E CORP: Motions to Dismiss PERA New Mexico Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motions to
dismiss the third amended complaint in the consolidated class
action suit entitled, In re PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation,
headed by the Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico
("PERA") as lead plaintiff, are still pending.
In June 2018, two purported securities class actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, naming PG&E Corporation and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants, entitled David C. Weston v. PG&E
Corporation, et al. and Jon Paul Moretti v. PG&E Corporation, et
al., respectively.
The complaints alleged material misrepresentations and omissions
related to, among other things, vegetation management and
transmission line safety in various PG&E Corporation public
disclosures.
The complaints asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and sought unspecified monetary relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.
Both complaints identified a proposed class period of April 29,
2015 to June 8, 2018. On September 10, 2018, the court consolidated
both cases and the litigation is now denominated In re PG&E
Corporation Securities Litigation.
The court also appointed the Public Employees Retirement
Association of New Mexico ("PERA") as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended complaint on November 9, 2018. After
the plaintiff requested leave to amend its complaint to add
allegations regarding the 2018 Camp fire, the plaintiff filed a
second amended consolidated complaint on December 14, 2018.
Due to the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases, PG&E Corporation
and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility) filed a notice
on February 1, 2019, reflecting that the proceedings were
automatically stayed as to PG&E Corporation and the Utility
pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
On February 15, 2019, PG&E Corporation and the Utility filed a
complaint in Bankruptcy Court against the plaintiff seeking
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to extend the stay to
the claims alleged against the individual officer defendants.
On February 22, 2019, a third purported securities class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, entitled York County on behalf of the York County
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Rambo, et al. (the "York County
Action").
The complaint names as defendants certain current and former
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of four public
offerings of notes from 2016 to 2018. Neither PG&E Corporation nor
the Utility is named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with the note offerings related to, among other things,
PG&E Corporation's and the Utility's vegetation management and
wildfire safety measures.
The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, attorneys'
fees and other costs, and injunctive relief.
On May 7, 2019, the York County Action was consolidated with In re
PG&E Corporation Securities Litigation.
On May 28, 2019, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
actions filed a third amended consolidated class action complaint,
which includes the claims asserted in the previously filed actions
and names as defendants PG&E Corporation, the Utility, certain
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters.
On August 28, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court denied PG&E Corporation's
and the Utility's request to extend the stay to the claims against
the officer, director, and underwriter defendants. On October 4,
2019, the officer, director, and underwriter defendants filed
motions to dismiss the third amended complaint, which motions are
currently under submission with the District Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
PG&E Corporation, through its subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, engages in the sale and delivery of electricity and
natural gas to residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural customers in northern and central California, the
United States. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation Inc. filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.
POLAROID AMERICA: Romero Asserts Breach under ADA in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polaroid America Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Polaroid America Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09219 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
Polaroid America Corp is located in New York, NY, United States and
is part of the Consumer Electronics & Appliances Stores
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PRECIGEN INC: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation
("Precigen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON) in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Precigen between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Precigen investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
Company was using pure methane as feedstock for its announced
yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of
natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock were
substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane yields;
(3) due to the substantial price difference between pure methane
and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable
feedstock; (4) the Company's financial statements for the quarter
ended March 31, 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (5)
the Company had material weaknesses in its internal controls over
financial reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the
SEC since October 2018; and (7) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' 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.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Precigen
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the
December 4, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]
PRECIGEN INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a/ Intrexon
Corporation ("Intrexon" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PGEN, XON)
investors that acquired securities between May 10, 2017 and
September 25, 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, or click here to join the case.
On September 25, 2020, it was announced by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") that a $2.6 million civil penalty
against Intrexon related to its statements about the "purported
success converting relatively inexpensive natural gas into more
expensive industrial chemicals using a proprietary methane
bioconversion ('MBC') program." In its cease-and-desist order, the
SEC noted that "Intrexon was primarily using significantly more
expensive pure methane for the relevant laboratory experiments but
was indicating that the results had been achieved using natural
gas." Though Intrexon had pitched the program to business partners
throughout 2017 and 2018, the SEC pointed out that a "number of the
potential partners performed due diligence on the MBC program
including reviewing lab results and plans for commercialization[,
and] Intrexon has not yet found a partner for the MBC program."
It is alleged in the complaint filed in this class action that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially misleading
and/or false statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Intrexon's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Intrexon failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
Intrexon was using pure methane as feedstock for its announced
yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of
natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock were
substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane yields;
(3) pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock, due to
the substantial price difference between pure methane and natural
gas; (4) the Intrexon financial statements for the quarter ended
March 31, 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (5)
Intrexon had material weaknesses in its internal controls over
financial reporting; (6) Since October 2018, Intrexon was under
investigation by the SEC; and (7) that, Intrexon 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. [GN]
PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------
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 Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ:
PGEN, XON) between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Precigen f/k/a Intrexon investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Precigen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1964.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as
feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph
bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from
natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the
aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial
price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane
was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's
financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were
false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material
weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6)
the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' 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 December
4, 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-1964.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.
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.
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]
PRINTS AND SIGNS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Prints and Signs International LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Prints and Signs International
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09217 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
Prints and Signs International, LLC offers online printing
solutions that deliver customized photo gifts products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
RICOH IMAGING: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------
Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ricoh Imaging Americas
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09214 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3,
2020).
Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation is a subsidiary of Ricoh, a
global technology company specializing in office imaging equipment,
production print solutions, document management systems and IT
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
RIPPLE: Court Narrows Claims in Sostack Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
coingeek.com reports that cross border payment remittance company
Ripple has been part-granted a motion to dismiss some of the claims
brought against it by investors, as the firm battles an ongoing
class-action lawsuit over alleged securities fraud.
Investors claim Ripple and the company's CEO Brad Garlinghouse
failed to register XRP with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and then went on to make misleading statements
about the token, leading to the eventual class action suit.
In the U.S. District Court of Northern California last Friday,
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted two legs of Ripple's motion for
dismissal, with 10 claims total outstanding against the firm.
The judge said that plaintiff Bradley Sostack had provided
insufficient evidence to support two of the claims, which relate in
particular to purportedly false statements made by the firm back in
2017.
However, for the most part, the judge refused to dismiss the claims
against the company, including over misleading advertisements for
XRP and allegations of an illegal securities issue.
One particular claim found that Garlinghouse had misrepresented his
personal investments in XRP to investors, telling prospective
customers that he was personally "very, very long XRP as a
percentage of my personal balance sheet." In reality, Garlinghouse
had sold off substantial parts of his investment in XRP, adding up
to millions of dollars.
Other claims alleged to be misleading included that banks were
using XRP for liquidity, and that token demand was being driven by
its "value proposition."
Based on this and other of the claims still standing, Sostack now
has leave to proceed with the action against Ripple and
Garlinghouse.
While the decision by Judge Hamilton leaves Ripple in a marginally
better position, the firm will now be expected to account for the
remaining claims in the class action lawsuit. [GN]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bragar Eagel Alerts of Class Action Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern District
of Florida on behalf of investors that purchased Royal Caribbean
Group (NYSE: RCL) securities between February 4, 2020 and March 17,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until December 7, 2020 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The complaint, filed on October 7, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants failed to disclose material facts about
the Company's decrease in bookings outside China, instead
maintaining that it was only experiencing a slowdown in bookings
from China. The Action further alleges that defendants failed to
disclose material facts about the Company's inadequate policies and
procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. The
truth about the scope of the impact that COVID-19 had on the
Company's overall bookings and the inability of Royal Caribbean to
prevent the virus' spread on its ships was revealed through a
series of disclosures.
First, on February 13, 2020, Royal Caribbean issued a press release
stating that it had canceled 18 voyages in Southeast Asia due to
recent travel restrictions and further warning that recent bookings
had been softer for its broader business.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 3 percent.
Second, on February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean filed its 2019 Form
10-K, indicating that COVID-19 concerns were negatively impacting
its overall business.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 14 percent.
Third, on March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020
financial guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550
million, and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due
to the proliferation of COVID-19, further revealing that COVID-19
was severely impacting Royal Caribbean's 2020 customer booking and
that its safety measures were inadequate to prevent the spread of
the virus on its ships.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 14 percent.
Fourth, on March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean's largest competitor,
Carnival, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations,
prompting concern that Royal Caribbean would follow suit. At the
same time, Royal Caribbean also cancelled two cruises, beginning a
series of cancellations and suspensions to follow.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell almost 32 percent.
Fifth, on March 14, 2020, Royal Caribbean announced a suspension of
all global cruises for 30 days.
On this news, Royal Caribbean stock fell over 7 percent.
Sixth, on March 16, 2020, the Company revealed that global
operations could be suspended longer than anticipated, announcing
the cancellations of two additional cruises throughout April and
into May.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell over 7 percent.
Finally, on March 18, 2020, analysts downgraded Royal Caribbean's
stock and slashed their price targets.
On this news, Royal Caribbean shares fell more than 19 percent.
If you purchased Royal Caribbean during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
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]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 12 disclosed that class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Royal Caribbean
Cruises Ltd. 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.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE:RCL)
RCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 4, 2020
- March 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10005&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Royal Caribbean
misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was
relatively insignificant; (2) the Company falsely assured investors
that bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a
slowdown; (3) the Company was experiencing material declines in
bookings globally due to customer concerns over COVID-19; and (5)
the Company's ships were following grossly inadequate protocols
that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial
risk to passengers and crews.
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]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
(NYSE:RCL) between February 4, 2020 and March 17, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Royal Caribbean investors under the federal securities laws. A
class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 7, 2020.
To join the Royal Caribbean class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1966.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company. Regarding global
bookings, Royal Caribbean made statements that: (1) misled
investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was
relatively insignificant; (2) falsely assured investors that
bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a slowdown; and
(3) failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing material
declines in bookings globally due to customer concerns over
COVID-19. Additionally, regarding safety procedures, the Company
made statements that: (1) falsely assured investors that it
implemented rigorous safety protocols; (2) such protocols were
expected to ultimately contain the spread of COVID-19; and (3)
failed to disclose that its ships were following grossly inadequate
protocols that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a
substantial risk to passengers and crews. 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 December
7, 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-1966.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.
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.
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]
SCRANTON, PA: Feb. 2021 Hearing Set for Trash Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that a
resident filed a class-action lawsuit in December 2016 challenging
Scranton's annual $300 garbage pickup fee as arbitrary and
excessive.
The lawsuit, time-consuming on its own and also delayed by the
pandemic shutdown, remains pending in Lackawanna County Court and
has a hearing scheduled for February 2021. [GN]
SLEEP DATA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Alerts of Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Sleep Data Services LLC failed to provide their California
employees with correct minimum and overtime wages. The Sleep Data
Services LLC, class action lawsuit, Case No.
37-2020-00032747-CU-OE-CTL, is currently pending in the San Diego
Superior Court of the State of California.
The complaint alleges Sleep Data Services LLC committed acts of
unfair competition in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec 17200, et seq. (the
"UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure which
failed to accurately calculate and record the correct overtime rate
for the overtime worked by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS
Members. As a result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the
obligation to meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to
properly calculate and/or pay all required compensation for work
performed by the members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the
California Labor Code.
Additionally, "DEFENDANT subjected PLAINTIFF to adverse employment
action by retaliating against PLAINTIFF." Allegedly, DEFENDANT
failed to properly maintain standard safety measures at the job
site and placed employees in a constant risk during the COVID-19
pandemic. As an alleged retaliation, PLAINTIFF's employment
resulted in termination, which is protected against public policy.
If you would like to know more about the Sleep Data Services LLC
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today by
calling (800) 568-8020.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]
SPICE & TEA EXCHANGE: Romero Asserts Breach of ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spice & Tea Exchange Holdings, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spice & Tea Exchange Holdings,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09059-JPO (E.D. N.Y., Oct. 28,
2020).
The Spice & Tea Exchange(R) offers more than 140 spices, over 85
exclusive hand-mixed blends, 16 naturally-flavored sugars, an array
of salts from around the world, and more than 45 exotic teas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
STEELE COUNTY, MN: Coffey Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lon Thiele. The case
is styled as Isaiah Coffey and Ron Jaeger, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Lon
Thiele, in his official capacity as Steele County Sheriff,
Defendant, Case No. 0:20-cv-02237-NEB-TNL (D., Minn., Oct. 27,
2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.
The Defendant is a government representative as County
Sheriff.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradford W. Colbert, Esq.
875 Summit Ave.
Room 254
St Paul, MN 55105
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason M Hiveley, Esq.
Iverson Reuvers Condon
9321 Ensign Ave S
Bloomington, MN 55438
Tel: (952) 548-7209
Fax: (952) 548-7210
Email: jasonh@irc-law.com
- and -
Stephanie A Angolkar, Esq.
Iverson Reuvers Condon
9321 Ensign Ave S
Bloomington, MN 55438
Tel: (952) 548-7200
Fax: (952) 548-7210
Email: stephanie@irc-law.com
- and -
Julia Kelly, Esq.
Iverson Reuvers Condon
9321 Ensign Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55438
Tel: (952) 548-7202
Email: julia@irc-law.com
STICKER MULE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Subik, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that a former
employee of Sticker Mule LLC and Print Bear LLC has filed a federal
lawsuit alleging the two mutually owned sticker-making companies
violated state and federal labor laws by failing to pay overtime
wages at the correct rate over a two-year period.
Tierra Bonefort filed the lawsuit through her attorneys on Oct. 5
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
The lawsuit is seeking back pay, attorneys fees and class action
status to allow approximately 40 former and current workers at
Sticker Mule and Print Bear to join the lawsuit.
Bonefort alleges she did not receive adequate overtime pay in
accordance with the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
New York Labor Law during the time period between Sept. 12, 2018,
through Jan. 31, 2020, when she regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week at Sticker Mule and Print Bear's 49 Elk St. and 336 Forest
Ave. locations.
The lawsuit states the two companies have three work shifts and
provide a pay differential for the late and overnight shifts, but
don't include the shift pay increase when calculating overtime pay,
which if true would be a violation of federal and state labor law.
"For example, from Aug. 19, 2019, through Aug. 24, 2019, Bonefort
worked 47.56 hours," reads the lawsuit. "All of her work for the
week was done on the Second or Third Shift, which entitled her to
shift differential pay. Her regular hourly rate was $14.15 and her
shift differential was $1.70. Her overtime rate, however, was only
paid at $21.23, which is one and one-half times her hourly rate. As
a result, Plaintiff was not paid any overtime wages on her shift
differential pay."
The lawsuit states New York Labor Law requires employers to
"furnish each employee with a statement with every payment of
wages" that contains the employer's "phone number" and the "basis"
of the employee's pay.
"Defendants' pay stubs, however, failed to provide Class Members
with the employers' phone number and to list the Class Members'
basis of pay," reads the lawsuit.
Sticker Mule and Print Bear are both owned by company CEO and
founder Anthony Constantino.
Constantino made headlines and created viral internet traffic in
December 2019 when he announced surprise $1,000 Christmas bonuses
for all of his employees.
Bonefort would have been employed during the awarding of the
Christmas bonuses, but they are not mentioned in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit makes no mention of how many overtime hours Bonefort
alleges she was improperly paid, but the suit does ask the federal
court to certify its class action status and allow notice to be
given to other potential litigants of their right to join the
lawsuit.
Bonefort is represented in the lawsuit by Kessler Matura P.C., of
Melville, Suffolk County, and the Law Offices of Raphael A. Katri
of Beverly Hills, California. [GN]
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Nov. 30 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 Tactile Systems Technology,
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.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCMD)
Class Period: May 7, 2018 to June 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020
Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Tactile is a medical
technology company that develops and provides medical devices for
the at home treatment of lymphedema and venous insufficiency. A
material portion of Tactile's annual revenues come in the form of
reimbursement from public third party payers, such as Medicare, the
Veteran's Administration and certain Medicaid programs in the
United States. Accordingly, Tactile's compliance with applicable
federal and state rules and public payer regulations is critical to
the Company's success.
The complaint, filed on September 29, 2020, alleges that defendants
violated the securities laws by misrepresenting and concealing
that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5
plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable
market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to
induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile and/or its employees
were engaged in illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities
in violation of applicable federal and state rules and public payer
regulations; (3) the foregoing illicit and illegal sales and
marketing activities increased the risk of a Medicare audit of
Tactile's claims and criminal and civil liability; (4) Tactile's
revenues were in part the product of unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and that as a result of the foregoing, (5)
defendants' public statements, including its year-over-year revenue
growth and the purported growth drivers, were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
The truth began to emerge on March 20, 2019, when an amended
federal Qui Tam complaint filed against Tactile by one of the
Company's competitors was unsealed, which contained detailed
allegations of illegal sales practices on the part of Tactile,
causing the Company to submit fraudulent claims to Medicare and the
VA.
On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $4.53 per share over
the next two trading days, or 7.5%, from a close price of $60.10
per share on March 20, 2019 to a close price of $55.57 on March 22,
2019.
Then, on February 21, 2020, the court issued an order in the Qui
Tam action, denying Tactile's motion to dismiss in its entirety.
On this news, the price of Tactile shares fell $6.65 per share, or
10.59%, to close at $56.09 on February 24, 2020.
Finally, on June 8, 2020, research firm OSS Research published a
scathing report about the Company, accusing Tactile of using a
"'daisy-chaining' kickback scheme that has resulted in rampant
overprescribing and rapid market share gains at the expense of
patients, insurers and the public."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $6.05, or 11.69%, from
its June 8, 2020 opening price of $51.72 per share to a June 9,
2020 close of $45.67.
For more information on the Tactile class action go to:
https://bespc.com/TCMD
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
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]
THOMSON INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------
Denio Lourenco, writing for CTV News, reports that a class-action
lawsuit is looking to compensate Canadians impacted by a large
Salmonella outbreak that happened over the summer.
The lawsuit alleges the outbreak was caused by contaminated onions
from a California-based food production company, Thomson
International Inc.
Onions were distributed to wholesalers, restaurants and retail
stores throughout Canada and the U.S. They were also used in other
food products, like salsas and premade sandwiches that are found in
grocery stores.
The onions were eventually recalled after a safety investigation by
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
CTVNews.ca made several attempts to contact Thomson International
for comment, but its attempts have so far gone unreturned.
Salmonella bacteria can cause serious and sometimes deadly
infections in young children, pregnant women and elderly people, as
well as individuals with weak immune systems.
Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but
can still make a person sick. Common symptoms of an infection often
include fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. Most
people who become ill from an infection recover after a few days.
As of Oct. 1, the Public Health Agency of Canada found 515
confirmed cases of Salmonella - primarily in British Columbia and
Alberta - connected to the onions, resulting in 79 hospitalizations
across Canada.
In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have
reported 1,127 cases of Salmonella across 48 states and 167
hospitalizations connected to the outbreak.
The lawsuit was filed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
Sept. 30, and a corresponding lawsuit was also filed in Quebec on
Aug. 27. [GN]
TOMALES BAY FOODS: Romero Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tomales Bay Foods, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Josue Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Tomales Bay Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09225 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
Tomales Bay Foods is a food & beverages company based out of 80 4TH
ST, Point Reyes Station, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TORRES FARM: Mayen Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Torres Farm Labor
Contractor, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Mayen, an individual,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Torres Farm Labor Contractor, Inc., a California
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. BCV-20-102529 (Ca. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 28, 2020).
The type of the suit is stated as Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited.
Torres Farm Labor Contractor is located in Bakersfield, CA, United
States and is part of the Crop Production Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Henry Schelly, Esq.
880 Apollo St Ste 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 322-2211
Fax: (310) 322-2252
Email: thomas@kallaw.com
TOWN OF OAKVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Community Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
insidehalton.com reports that a proposed class action lawsuit filed
against the Town of Oakville, Mayor Rob Burton and others is
seeking nearly $1 billion in damages.
The statement of claim was filed Sept. 29 by attorneys at Will
Davidson LLP and former Oakville mayoral candidate and attorney
John McLaughlin.
It alleges the Town of Oakville, Mayor Burton, the Town of Milton,
Conservation Halton, the Halton Region and the Ministry of the
Attorney General, individually and/or collectively permitted
extensive residential and commercial development that removed green
space and, in so doing so, increased the risk of community flooding
in Oakville.
The residents involved in the claim include those who owned
property in Oakville from June 23, 2018 to present day.
They are seeking redress for damage or loss allegedly suffered
because of the expansion of the regulatory flood plain and related
regulatory encumbrance.
None of these allegations have been proven in court.
The representative plaintiff in this claim is Erwin Banfi.
It is unclear how many residents are participating in the claim,
however, what is clear is they are seeking $900 million in special,
general and aggravated damages for alleged negligence, nuisance and
breach of fiduciary duty.
They are looking for another $90 million in punitive damages and an
order from the court directing the defendants to undertake steps
necessary to reduce the risk of flooding within these Oakville
flood plain areas.
In an Oct. 6 statement, the Town of Oakville confirmed it was
served with a proposed class-action lawsuit for damages suffered by
Oakville property owners related to storm water management and
flooding.
"The allegations relate to historical development approvals given
by the various defendants that are alleged to have caused the
damages. None of the allegations have been proven in court and will
be disputed through a lengthy legal process," reads the Town's
statement.
"The Town, through its insurer, will defend the claim on the
grounds that it has no merit and that at all times the Town has
acted in good faith, within the scope of its legislative authority
by implementing provincial policies that permitted new growth and
development. Protecting the public interest has always been a key
priority of the Town's comprehensive planning review and approval
process, and through the maintenance of its built infrastructure."
Halton Region issued a similar statement, noting the allegations
would be disputed through the legal process.
Conservation Halton also weighed in on the proposed class-action
lawsuit.
"This claim alleges that Conservation Halton made policy, land use,
and regulatory decisions which increased downstream flood risks to
residents, as well as other claims," reads the statement. "These
allegations are not true. Conservation Halton at all times worked
within the framework of the Conservation Authorities Act and the
regulations and the applicable Provincial Policy Statements as well
as its own policies. These provisions were all designed to work
together to protect the community from dangers to life, safety, and
property damage."
The conservation authority went on to note that at all times they
based their decisions on evidence and on input received from
various engineers and other professionals.
They said at all times they acted fairly and with professionalism
in discharging their duties.
Oakville Mayor Rob Burton pointed out the claim has not yet been
certified by a court as a class-action lawsuit and said the
allegations that flood risks to residents increased as a result of
historical policy, land use and regulatory decisions by the parties
on whom the claim was served are untrue.
He said the allegations against him personally are without basis.
"The powers of a municipality are exercised by its council," he
said.
"All decisions regarding flood control measures and planning
approvals have been made by Town Council, and not by the mayor or
any individual member of council. The appropriate motion will be
brought in due course to strike the claim against the mayor."
The Town of Milton and the Ministry of the Attorney General
declined to comment on this matter.
In addition to alleged flooding-related property damage, the
proposed class action claims expansion of the flood plains resulted
in restricted construction on residential properties, and prevented
some residents from enlarging existing homes on the basis that
flood risks would be created or aggravated.
The claim further alleges these restrictions were not disclosed in
public title searches of individual properties located in the flood
plain areas, which impairs an informed home purchase's decision
process.
With the statement of claim filed, the defendants have 20 days to
file a statement of defence. [GN]
TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Consolidated Class Suit in Florida Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tupperware Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative stockholder class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.
Beginning in February 2020, a number of putative stockholder class
actions and shareholder derivative actions were filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors.
The putative stockholder class actions allege that statements in
public filings between January 30, 2019 and February 24, 2020 (the
"potential class period") regarding the Company's disclosure of
controls and procedures and financial guidance, as well as the need
for an amendment of its credit facility, violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased the Company's shares during the potential class period
and demand unspecified monetary damages.
The cases have been consolidated and are pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The
shareholder derivative actions allege that certain officers and
directors breached fiduciary duties to the Company, were unjustly
enriched, and violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Act of 1934, on generally the same fact pattern.
Two cases are pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida and have been consolidated; another case
is pending in the Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for
Orange County, Florida, Circuit Civil Division.
The Company believes the complaints and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the actions.
Tupperware said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine
whether the outcome of these actions would have a material impact
on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."
Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global
marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across
multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and
categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving
solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand and
beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller
Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands.
UNITED STATES: Immigrant Defenders Law Center Files Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against government officials.
The case is styled as Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a California
corporation, Jewish Family Service of San Diego, Daniel Doe, Hannah
Doe, Benjamin Doe, Jessica Doe, Anthony Doe, Nicholas Doe, Feliza
Doe and Jaqueline Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Chad Wolf Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Mark A. Morgan, Acting
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in his official
capacity, William A. Ferrara, Executive Assistant Commissioner,
Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border, Rodney S.
Scott, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, in his official capacity, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Tony H. Pham, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity and U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-09893 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 28, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other
Immigration Action filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
Act.
The Defendants are government representatives.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Angel Tang Nakamura, Esq.
Arnold and Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
777 South Figueroa Street 44th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
Tel: (213) 243-4000
Fax: (213) 243-4199
Email: angel.nakamura@arnoldporter.com
UNITED STATES: Justice Dept. Prevails in Plymouth Jail Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Standard-Times reports that the U.S. Attorney's Office
prevailed in a habeas class action brought by law firms WilmerHale
and Todd & Weld LLP seeking the release of over 150 detainees
awaiting trial in Plymouth County on federal charges, including
serious drug and gun crimes, on the ground that continued detention
was unconstitutional because of the threat to health and safety
posed by COVID-19, according to a press release from the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
In April, the detainees filed a habeas petition challenging the
conditions at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility ("PCCF"),
the state jail where they are held, as inadequate to address the
COVID-19 pandemic. They sought an injunction that would require the
immediate release of some or all of them, as well as various other
forms of relief, the release said. In May, U.S. District Court
Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied their request for an injunction based
on the many measures and policies in place at PCCF to protect
detainees and staff, but stopped short of dismissing the case at
that time. In September, the court found that the detainees could
not establish an entitlement to habeas relief, and that it would
deny the habeas petition unless they presented additional evidence
by Oct. 8. Instead, the detainees voluntarily dismissed the case,
according to the release.
"The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on detention
facilities," stated United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling. "Our
law enforcement partners in Plymouth met that challenge by swiftly
instituting measures to ensure the safety of detainees, staff, and
the public. Consequently, they prevailed, despite the plaintiffs'
insistence that the facility was still unsafe. We are pleased the
Court recognized Plymouth's efforts in this case."
"The health and safety of the persons committed to the Department's
care and custody, the staff, and the public is of paramount
importance," Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald, Jr., said.
"It is gratifying to see that the Court has recognized the many
measures the Department has taken to protect people during this
time of unprecedented challenge."
The case was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason C. Weida and
Rachel Goldstein of Lelling's Civil Division, with assistance from
Lisa Olson of the Justice Department's Civil Division. [GN]
WING ENTERPRISES: Graciano Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Wing Enterprises, Incorporated 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. Wing Enterprises,
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-09052 (S.D. N.Y., Oct.
28, 2020).
Wing Enterprises, Incorporated was founded in 1986. The Company's
line of business includes the extruding of alumium and aluminum
base alloy basic shapes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Gottlieb & Associates
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr 10003
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds Nov. 23 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Pongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California captioned Earley v. Wrap
Technologies, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:20-cv-09444) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Wrap
Technologies, Inc. ("Wrap" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WRTC)
securities between April 29, 2020 and September 23, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until November 23,
2020 to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
If you suffered a loss on your Wrap 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/wrap-technologies-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
In December 2019, the Company announced that the Los Angeles Police
Department ("LAPD") would train its officers on the BolaWrap and
deploy 200 devices in the field for a 90-day pilot program
beginning in January 2020.
On July 22, 2020, White Diamond Research published a report
alleging that the BolaWrap had limited use in the field and
therefore Wrap has a very small total addressable market. The
report also alleged that it was likely Wrap did not secure a
contract with the LAPD.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.55, or 4.6%, to
close at $11.34 per share on July 22, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On August 25, 2020, after the market closed, an article by Los
Angeles Times reported that "[s]ince the initial 180-day pilot
began in February, LAPD officers have used the BolaWrap a total of
nine times[, and it] was deemed 'effective' in six instances." As a
result, the LAPD sought a 180-day extension to continue evaluating
the device.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.50, or 5.7%, to
close at $8.27 per share on August 27, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On September 23, 2020, White Diamond Research published a second
report, alleging that, despite previously touting the LAPD pilot
program, Wrap failed to disclose the key findings from the initial
180-day testing period because it was "bad news." The report
described the nine incidents in which the BolaWrap had been used,
thereby highlighting its limited utility.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.07, or 25%, close
at $6.07 per share on September 23, 2020, thereby damaging
investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) that there were limited instances in which Wrap's
BolaWrap could potentially be used because it requires a minimum of
10 feet between the officer and the suspect; (2) that, as a result,
the BolaWrap was reasonably unlikely to be effective in most
situations; (3) that the LAPD sought extensions of the pilot
program because they needed a larger sample size to assess the
effectiveness of the BolaWrap; (4) that the LAPD had not found the
BolaWrap to be useful or effective during its pilot program; (5)
that, as a result, Wrap had not received positive feedback from the
LAPD about the BolaWrap and therefore it was unlikely that the
Company would secure a sizeable contract with the LAPD; and (6)
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. [GN]
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP: Winegard Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.
doing business as: www.yamahaboats.com, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-05315 (E.D. N.Y., Nov. 3, 2020).
Yamaha Motor Corporation USA sells, markets, and distributes
motorized products. The Company offers products which includes
motorcycles, scooters, outboard motors, all terrain vehicles,
personal watercrafts, snowmobiles, boats, outdoor power equipment,
race kart engines, gifts, accessories, and apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
Law Office of Mitchell S. Segal P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Tel: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
*********
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 ***