/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201119.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 19, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 232
Headlines
AMERICA DIRECTIONS: Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Zambia Mine
ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over School Trip Refunds
AURORA CANNABIS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline
AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 1 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Seeks to Recover Indigenous Stolen Wages
BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Pharma Pricing Antitrust Suit Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Special Master Recommends Denial of Bid to Dismiss
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Timothy L. Miles Reminds of Nov. 24 Bid Deadline
BOULDER VALLEY SD: Faces Suit From Special Education Students
BUFFALO, NY: Police Union Seeks $100MM Damages in Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Court-Okayed $5.5B Settlement Deal Brought to 2nd Cir.
CAPITAL ONE: Pre-Trial Discovery in Consumer Class Suit Ongoing
CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit Over Information Security Underway
CIMIC: To Offload Thiess Stake, Faces Investor Class Action
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Tabizon Putative Class Action Ongoing
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
DANYA B: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DR. DETAIL: Misclassifies Service Workers, Rathert Suit Claims
DREAMGIRLS: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
EASTPOINT RECOVERY: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Loot Boxes
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial Date Still Not Set in Nichols Suit
ENERGY SERVICES: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Engineers, Ward Claims
EQUITY BANCSHARES: N.Y. Court Tosses Securities Class Action
EVOLUS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
EXELON CORP: Class Suits Over SEC Lobbying Probe Ongoing
FLEX LTD: Dec. 3 Hearing Set on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
FLUIDIGM CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
FORSTER & GARBUS: Donbaljaj Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: To Settle Robocall Class Action for $9.5 Million
GOLAR LNG: Rosen Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Motion Deadline
H&J LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Mendez Claims
HCC SPECIALTY: R&J Entertainment Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
HDFC BANK: Posts Second-Quarter Profit Amid Class Action
HYUNDAI MOTOR: 2019 Class Action Settlement Hits Earnings
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Faces Doyle Class Suit Over Data Breach
MINDBODY INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Shareholders Class Suit
MISSOURI: Wilkinson Walsh Helps Win $50MM Class Action Settlement
MRS BPO: Faces Skvarla FDCPA Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
MYERS INDUSTRIES: Traxler Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
NEW YORK BAGELS: Dominguez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
NEW YORK: Parents File Class Action Over Remote Learning
NEXTCURE INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Emissions Warranties
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Several Investor Lawsuits
OLD REPUBLIC: Sued for Refusing to Reimburse Cancelled Trips
PIZZA PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
PLAID: Faces TD Bank Lawsuit Amid Class Actions
PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action Over Emissions Defeat Devices
PRECIGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 4 Motion Deadline
QUEST: Landlords Threatening to Pursue Class Action
REATA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Securities Class Action
REATA PHARMA: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
REGIS CORP: Awaits Court's Approval of Class Action Settlements
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 7 Motion Deadline
SAMUEL & STEIN: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
SIRIUS XM: Faces Mueller TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
SPORTS MACHINE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Suit Claims
STORMWIND LLC: Moore Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
TURQUOISE HILL: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
UNILEVER US: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Taylor Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Mexico Mulls Class Action Over Forced Surgery
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Tuition, Fee Refunds
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Racial Discrimination Class Action Mulled
VAXART: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Lawsuits, Class Action
VBI VACCINES: Dec. 3 Preliminary Hearing Set in Suit v. SciVac
WATER GREMLIN: Homeowner Files Property Damage Class Action
WHITEHORSE CORRECTIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Segregation
WORLEY: Federal Court Justice Tosses Investor Class Action
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 23 Bid Deadlin
WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KS: Joyce Sues Over Civil Rights Act Violation
YRC WORLDWIDE: Appeal in Lewis Purported Class Suit Pending
ZURICH AMERICAN: Lindenwood University Files Class Action
[*] China Launches New Class Action Mechanism
[*] Two Opt-In Data Privacy Class Actions Pending in France
*********
AMERICA DIRECTIONS: Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nikku Khalifian, Esq. -- nikku.khalifian@wbd-us.com -- of Womble
Bond Dickinson, in an article for JDSupra, reports that political
campaigns remain prime targets during election season. And, despite
a narrow interpretation of an ATDS by the Seventh Circuit, one
District Court in Illinois found that the Plaintiff had plausibly
pled the Defendant's use of an ATDS based upon the nature of its
business as a political pollster.
In Michael Drew v. America Directions Research Group, Case No.
20-cv-00402, 2020 WL 6118539 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2020), Plaintiff
allegedly received unsolicited text messages from an unknown number
as part of a mass-text campaign directing "voters" and encouraging
them to "participate" in an online survey. Plaintiff's complaint
alleged that Defendant America Directions Research Group ("ADRG")
obtained consumers' cellular telephone numbers, including
Plaintiff's, by purchasing lists of telephone numbers collected by
other companies, and that he, and other consumers, received text
messages from ADRG despite having never given consent. Plaintiff
further alleged (i) that ADRG used an automated telephone dialing
system ("ATDS") based on the impersonal, unsolicited nature of the
text message and the unknown number from which it was received, and
(ii) that the ATDS used a random or sequential number generator to
store the lists of telephone numbers that were then sent text
messages automatically.
ADRG argued the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff had
not pled sufficient facts that ADRG used an ATDS to text him in
violation of the TCPA.
Relying on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Gadelhak v. AT&T
Servs., Inc., 950 F.3d 458, 460 (7th Cir. 2020), the Court reasoned
that, in order to succeed in his TCPA claim, Plaintiff must allege
and later prove that the equipment that originated the contact was
capable of either storing or producing telephone numbers using a
random or sequential number generator. However, as noted by the
Court, Gadelhak does not provide authority as to the pleading
standard required to overcome a motion to dismiss when alleging use
of an ATDS.
The Court acknowledged the disagreement among district courts in
the Seventh Circuit addressing this issue, and ultimately denied
ADRG's motion to dismiss.
Drawing on one decision in which the court considered the type of
business being accused of a TCPA violation as indicative of the
likelihood of ATDS usage, the Court found, as a survey research
provider, ADRG was significantly more likely to employ a random or
sequential number generator (than say a debt collector) and,
therefore, this factor weighed in favor of denying ADRG's motion to
dismiss. Further, the Court reasoned that the complaint alleged
some detail and not just barebone allegations by reciting the
relevant language of the statute. For example, Plaintiff alleged
the use of the plural "voters" implied a high volume of recipients
and encouraging "voters" to "participate" in an online survey made
the text messages generic.
Relying on the foregoing, the court held the generic and impersonal
nature of the text message Plaintiff received, coupled with the
business platform of ADRG, suggested the use of an ATDS was more
plausible than possible such that the machine used to text
Plaintiff was capable of storing and producing telephone numbers
and subsequently dialing them.
The Drew case illustrates that political campaigns and pollsters
remain in the crosshairs of the plaintiff's bar. And unfortunately,
it seems that some courts have started to fashion a rather
discriminatory pleading standard that favors some industries over
others in determining whether a plaintiff has plausibly pled the
defendant's use of a device with the capacity to randomly or
sequentially generate telephone numbers to be called. While this
means the Defendant in Drew will have to proceed with litigation,
it is likely the odds of the Plaintiff's success will diminish once
the Defendant is able to put on evidence regarding the technology
it used to send the texts at issues. However, this leaves one to
wonder whether this is all an expensive and wasteful exercise in
futility to get to the same outcome: a finding that the defendant
was dialing from a list of phone numbers, rather than using an
antiquated device to randomly or sequentially generate those
numbers. [GN]
ANGLO AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Zambia Mine
---------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cotterill, writing for The Financial Times, reports that
Anglo American is facing a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
more than 100,000 Zambians over the toxic legacy of a huge mine in
which it held a stake for decades.
The company's subsidiary in Johannesburg was served with the
lawsuit on Oct. 21 by lawyers representing people potentially
affected by poisoning of soil and water around Kabwe, once the
world's largest lead mine.
The mine was part of Anglo's empire from the 1920s until it was
nationalised in 1974. Operations ended two decades later but
according to experts cited in the filing, a failure to clean up the
mine left dangerous levels of lead in the environment.
Leigh Day, the UK law firm leading the suit, said in court papers
that Anglo should be held liable "because it played a key role in
controlling, managing, supervising and advising on technical,
medical and safety aspects of the operations of the mine" that
failed to prevent lead contamination.
The lawsuit is aimed at securing compensation and clean-up costs
from Anglo.
Two-thirds of all the lead mined at Kabwe, in the centre of the
southern African nation, was produced during Anglo's involvement in
operations, it added.
"This is a tragic environmental case because of the impact that it
has had on such a large number of children, not just now but
through the generations," said Richard Meeran, a Leigh Day partner.
"This is unprecedented in that sense."
Among the 13 plaintiffs leading the class action are children with
signs of lead poisoning and women who might face risks in pregnancy
from their exposure.
Anglo said it would review the claims and "take all necessary steps
to vigorously defend its position".
It added that it was "at all times far from being a majority owner"
of Kabwe through the decades and that after nationalisation
Zambia's state-owned mine company ran production until the mine's
closure.
The case underlines the growing scope of class-action cases brought
against global mining companies over the long-term legacy of their
operations.
Such suits have been brought against South African mining companies
by former workers suffering from the effects of dust inhalation.
Corporations across the continent have faced similar actions over
mine fatalities and human rights abuses.
Mining groups are increasingly acknowledging the environmental and
social legacies of their operations.
Mark Cutifani, Anglo's chief executive, said that "we are acutely
aware of the deep and lasting effects of our history as an
industry . . . while our progress is encouraging, we are
still not where we need to be".
The lawsuit is being backed by Augusta Ventures, the UK's largest
litigation finance fund by number of cases. Mr Meeran said Augusta
would finance the costs of crucial expert evidence and a large part
of legal fees in return for a share of the damages if the case was
successful.
Zanele Mbuyisa, a South African lawyer working with Leigh Day, said
Anglo was "a mining giant that has been instrumental in building
the economies of various countries".
It also had to be acknowledged that their operations had
caused "long-lasting damage to the health of those communities",
she added. [GN]
ARCH INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over School Trip Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Pauls, writing for CBC News, reports that lawyers
representing hundreds of frustrated families across Canada have
filed class-action lawsuits against an educational tour company and
two insurance companies, hoping to get refunds for school trips
cancelled last spring because of the coronavirus pandemic.
"I'm in it for the long haul. You know, if the insurance companies
are looking for a fight, they're going to get one," said Lucinda
Mungy, one of the four plaintiffs in one class-action suit filed
jointly on Oct. 20 by Curtis Dawe Lawyers in St. John's and Sotos
LLP in Toronto.
Her son, Owen, fund-raised for a trip to Europe that would take
place during his 18th birthday.
"When you're in a place like Prague, with a legal drinking age of
18, what teenager doesn't want to say that they drank legally on a
high school trip?" said Owen Mungy from his home in Fenelon Falls,
Ont.
"But there's also just seeing a part of the world that I've never
really seen before . . . I've never left the continent. So being
able to see this whole new part of the world, which is just, like,
amazing."
However on March 13, the Canadian government issued an official
global travel advisory to avoid non-essential travel abroad.
Schools and divisions cancelled their trips.
Seven months later, many families have not seen any refunds,
despite buying insurance. They've received correspondence from the
insurance companies, saying they need more information from the
tour company, Explorica Canada, including any refunds it has
received from airlines or hotels.
However, Explorica maintains it has provided all the necessary
documentation to the insurance companies so they can process the
claims. The company also says it has fulfilled its portion of
refunds owed to customers under its program terms. It has also
created a website to answer questions raised by families.
Common goal
Lucinda Mungy said she's one of the lucky ones: Explorica has
repaid about half of their $3,500 trip cost. However, she purchased
travel insurance from Old Republic Insurance Company of Canada
(ORIC) and wants it to repay the remainder.
The other plaintiffs are Ottawa family Dawn Molot and daughter
Tandia, who purchased insurance from Arch Insurance Canada. They
have not received any of the $4,600 they paid for their trip.
The class-action names both insurance companies, as well as
WorldStrides Canada Inc., the parent company of Explorica Canada.
Neither of the insurance companies responded to a request for an
interview, and Explorica had no one available for an interview.
The class-action is asking for full refunds for all families
involved, as well as $5 million in "aggravated punitive damages"
against the insurance companies.
Lawyer Travis Payne with Curtis Dawe has been working for months
with members of the Facebook group, Explorica Canada - Trying to
get our refunds. He has held Zoom question-and-answer sessions and
collected the names of schools and families involved.
"We have been in continuous contact with various parents on the
Facebook group, and also we have received over 750 emails from
parents. So I do think we are attuned to the issues and have put
our best foot forward with this filing," he said.
The Facebook group now has more than 1,700 members representing 170
schools from across the country and estimates they're owed $16
million, said Anne Nichol, a parent from Saint John, N.B., who
started the group in August.
"We all have a common goal. We would all like to get our money
back," she said, adding parents feel the regulatory bodies and
federal government should be doing more to help them. Now, they
believe court action is their only option.
'Forced to do what is right'
Meanwhile, two more class-actions have been filed by a separate law
firm, Samfiru Tumarkin LLP of Toronto.
Lawyer Sivan Tumarkin said he was contacted several weeks ago by
Scott Adnams, a former member of the Facebook group.
Tumarkin filed a class-action against Arch Insurance with Adnams
and his son, Carter, as the plaintiffs. On Oct. 20, he filed one
against ORIC, with other plaintiffs. Neither suit names Explorica
or WorldStrides because Tumarkin said the insurance companies are
the ones on the hook.
"I have never seen this, in all my years of practice, where you
have giant corporations pointing the finger at each other,"
Tumarkin said, adding no one is disputing the families are owed
refunds.
"My philosophy and certainly the philosophy of my firm is we don't
sit. We don't talk . . . My experience with insurance companies,
there is no negotiation with them. They either do what is right, or
they have to be forced to do what is right."
Adnams's son, Carter, said he was excited about a service trip to
help others in Costa Rica in April and was disappointed when it had
to be cancelled.
He raised nearly all of the $3,100 cost working part-time at
McDonald's.
"We'd been planning for a really long time, close to a year. We
were doing a lot of team building at that point. We all had become
a pretty close-knit group, so it was really hard the day before to
find out we were not going," Carter said from his home in Guelph,
Ont.
Adnams said he contacted Tumarkin because he had exhausted all the
avenues -- appealing to the companies, filing complaints with
regulatory bodies and writing politicians for help.
He has not received any refund to date.
"I wasn't really sure where that [Facebook group] was headed. There
were some unknown variables. In the meantime, I spoke to Sivan, and
he saw a really clear path forward so that seemed like the the best
solution for Carter at the time," Adnams said.
"This isn't about one law firm or another. It's about trying to get
money back that we're entitled to from the various insurers."
Tumarkin agreed.
"To me, the bad guys here are the insurance companies. It's not the
families. I understand why they may feel upset but forget about
who's going to help you. Let's just get these insurance companies
to pay," he said.
Split approach upsets families
That may all be true, said Nichol, but many members of the Facebook
group are unhappy Adnams went out on his own and found a different
law firm -- one that members of the group had reached out to
earlier in the summer but never got a response from.
"The feeling from most of us is that when they [Tumarkin LLP]
thought it was primarily an Atlantic Canada thing, they were not
interested. And, you know, we've spent the last couple of months,
we've built up our numbers . . . and now all of a sudden, this
other company is coming in," she said.
"In the end, they stand to make money. So I understand he may say
that the insurance companies are the bad guys. Valid, but they
haven't done any, as far as I understand. They haven't done any
legwork."
And because there are now two legal groups involved, it will slow
down the process because a judge will have to decide which
class-action should be certified, she said.
Once it is certified, all eligible families are automatically
members, no matter which province they live in, unless they opt
out.
A spokesperson for the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of
Ontario said it is not ignoring the concerns of the families.
However, Serena Yau said families should make sure their insurers
have the information they need to assess their claims under the
terms of the policy. [GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE:
ACB). 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.
Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
Class Period: February 13, 2020 to September 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Canada. The Company produces
and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide. It is
vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various
segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility
engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research,
production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home
cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution.
In 2018, the Canadian government approved the Cannabis Act, which
legalized and regulated the use of recreational cannabis. In
response to the statute's approval, and the corresponding surge of
the recreational cannabis industry, Aurora completed a series of
acquisitions to expand the Company's presence and increase its
distribution, including the Company's all-share purchase of the
Canadian medical cannabis producer MedReleaf for total
consideration of 3.2 billion Canadian dollars. Like many other
companies in the cannabis industry, however, the Company
encountered a variety of difficulties as the industry surged,
including, inter alia, overproduction, regulatory delays, and
competition from the black market.
On February 6, 2020,shortly before the start of the Class Period,
Aurora issued a press release announcing, inter alia, a "business
transformation plan," to "better align the business financially
with the current realities of the cannabis market in Canada while
maintaining a sustainable platform for long-term growth."
Specifically, the press release touted that the plan was "expected
to include significant and immediate decreases in selling, general
& administrative ("SG&A") expenses and capital investment plans."
On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release "announc[ing]
an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited
preliminary fiscal fourth quarter 2020 results." Among other
things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to
$1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter
of 2020. The Company also announced that "previously announced
fixed asset impairment charges[ were] now expected to be up to $90
million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge
of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain
inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand
with near term expectations for demand."
On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63%,
to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora
had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and
experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production
facilities and inventory; (ii) the Company's purported "business
transformation plan" and cost reset failed to mitigate the
foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was foreseeable that the
Company would record significant goodwill and asset impairment
charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Aurora Cannabis class action go to:
https://bespc.com/ACB
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 21 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Aurora
Cannabis Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff
have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further
details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There
is no cost or obligation to you.
Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE:ACB)
ACB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 13, 2020
- September 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10339&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Aurora
Cannabis Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly
overpaid for previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in
certain assets, including its production facilities and inventory;
(ii) the Company's purported "business transformation plan" and
cost reset failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii)
accordingly, it was foreseeable that the Company would record
significant goodwill and asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
http://www.zlk.com[GN]
AUSTRALIA: Class Action Seeks to Recover Indigenous Stolen Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ramsey, writing for Australian Associated Press, reports
that a class action has been launched against the West Australian
government in the hope of recovering wages stolen from Indigenous
workers, amid warnings many elderly complainants may not live to
see the matter resolved.
Shine Lawyers was expected to lodge the class action in the Federal
Court in mid-October 2020 on behalf of workers whose wages were
taken as part of a labour scheme operated under the Native
Administration Act 1936 and Native Welfare Act 1963.
Up to 10,000 workers are expected to be directly eligible, as well
as a "substantial" number of their descendants, senior associate
Tristan Gaven says.
WA's government has indicated it will look to settle the matter
outside of court, a position Mr Gaven says is encouraging given the
age of those affected.
"That has always been one of our key concerns," he told AAP.
"These group members are passing away at an alarming rate -
anecdotally I heard that in Queensland, it was one group member a
week.
"Absolutely the sooner, the better."
Queensland's government last year settled a class action relating
to similar unpaid entitlements for $190 million after a three-year
battle.
More than 30,000 claimants ultimately came forward, well above the
12,000 initially expected.
Mr. Gaven declined to estimate the potential compensation bill for
WA's government, saying the matter was incredibly complicated.
"If the Queensland case is any kind of indication, it's going to
involve poring over decades-old archive material. It's incomplete
as well, so that is going to be a huge challenge," he said.
"Even identifying and locating group members can be incredibly
challenging."
Class action group member Ron Harrington-Smith was four when he was
forcibly taken from his mother to work at the Mount Margaret
mission in the northeastern Goldfields region.
His duties included chopping and carting wood to missionaries in
their houses, marshalling livestock and cleaning soiled toilet
pans.
"All of this was barefoot and in squalid conditions," Mr
Harrington-Smith said.
"It's hard to imagine that we endured all this suffering. It is
unfair and appalling, and they have to be found guilty of the facts
and pay us back the stolen wages which are owed."
Shine's head of class actions Jan Saddler said the working
conditions were "akin to slavery".
Anyone subject to the policy will be included in the "opt-out"
class action, including descendants of deceased workers and their
estates.
Aboriginal Affairs Minister Ben Wyatt, whose paternal grandmother
was among the many Indigenous people subject to the discriminatory
policy, said the government was considering the grounds of the
compensation claims.
"This includes the allocation of the necessary resources and the
sourcing of the required materials to allow the state to respond to
the issues raised," a spokeswoman said.
"The government will look to achieve a mediated outcome of any
claims made in respect to the stolen wages issues, with an
acknowledgement of the impact that historical government policies
related to income control have had on Aboriginal people and their
families over many years." [GN]
BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Pharma Pricing Antitrust Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company's subsidiaries continue to defend a consolidated putative
class action suit entitled, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing
Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724).
The Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch
Health US, LLC, and Bausch Health Americas, Inc., are defendants in
multidistrict antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation.
The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege
that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix,
stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and
customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.
The initial lawsuit to which the Company was added as a defendant
in June 2018 was filed by a putative class of direct purchaser
plaintiffs.
In December 2018, certain direct purchaser plaintiffs that had
opted out of this putative class filed an amended complaint in the
MDL that added the Company, alleging similar claims as the direct
purchaser plaintiffs’ putative class action complaint.
In February 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
individual claims brought against it and that motion remains
pending. In October 2019, an end payer plaintiff that had opted out
of the putative end payer class filed a complaint against the
Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging similar
claims.
In December 2019, end payer opt-out complaints also were filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in
the Northern District of California.
In December 2019, separate putative class action complaints were
filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
by end payer and indirect reseller plaintiffs.
In February 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
direct purchaser plaintiffs. In June 2020, an opt-out complaint
raising both direct purchaser and end payer claims was filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Also in June 2020, State Attorneys General filed a Complaint
against the Company in the District of Connecticut.
In July 2020, a direct purchaser opt-out complaint was filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In
August 2020, a complaint was filed against the Company by Suffolk
County, New York in the Eastern District of New York.
In September 2020, a direct purchaser opt-out complaint was filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The cases have been or will be consolidated into the MDL.
There are also additional, separate complaints by other plaintiffs
which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the
Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant.
Bausch Health said, "In July 2019, 87 health plans commenced an
action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against
the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict
litigation, but no complaint has been filed and the case has been
put in deferred status. In May 2020, seven health plans commenced
an additional action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County against the Company and other defendants related to the
multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed. The
Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend
itself vigorously."
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In
re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA. The
lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation
regarding Glumetza(R) delayed generic entry in exchange for an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza(R) or
grant any other company a license to do so.
Between August 2019 and July 2020, eight putative antitrust class
actions and four non-class complaints naming the Company, Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus,
Inc., among other defendants, were filed or transferred to the
Northern District of California.
Three of the class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to
represent a class of direct purchasers. The purported classes of
direct purchasers filed a consolidated first amended complaint and
a motion for class certification in April 2020. The court certified
a direct purchaser class in August 2020. The putative class action
complaints filed by end payer purchasers have all been voluntarily
dismissed.
Three of the non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers.
The fourth non-class complaint, asserting claims based on both
direct and indirect purchases, was filed by an insurer plaintiff in
July 2020 and subsequently amended in September 2020. The Company's
motion to dismiss the insurer plaintiff's amended complaint is
pending.
These actions, five of which remain pending, have been consolidated
and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
3:19-cv-05822-WHA.
The complaints allege that the settlement agreement resulted in
higher prices for Glumetza(R) and its generic equivalent both prior
to and after generic entry.
Both the class and non-class plaintiffs seek damages under federal
antitrust laws for claims based on direct purchases.
The insurer plaintiff also seeks damages and equitable relief under
various state laws for claims based on indirect purchases. The
Company disputes the claims against it and intends to vigorously
defend these matters.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Special Master Recommends Denial of Bid to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a special
master appointed by the Court has recommended that the Company's
motion to dismiss be denied in the consolidated Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") related class action
suit.
Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were
subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under RICO on behalf of
a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor Rx Services, LLC for certain Company-branded
drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the
identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.
The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.
A special master appointed by the Court has recommended that the
Company's motion to dismiss be denied, but a final decision is
still pending with the Court.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Timothy L. Miles Reminds of Nov. 24 Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 19 years, reminds purchasers
of the securities of BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (NASDAQ: BMRN)
between February 28, 2020 and August 18, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important November 24, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in securities class action. The BioMarin class action
lawsuit was commenced on September 25, 2020 in the Northern
District of California and is captioned Tsantes v. BioMarin
Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 20-cv-06719. If you are a shareholder who
suffered a loss, click here to participate.
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BioMarin investors under
the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's
securities during the Class Period are encouraged to contact the
firm before November 24, 2020
BioMarin Accused of Misleading Shareholders
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) differences between the Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 study of
valoctocogene roxaparvovec limited the reliability of the Phase 1/2
study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect;
(2) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration would not approve the Biologics License Application
for valoctocogene roxaparvovec without additional data; and (3) as
a result, BioMarin's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 24, 2020.
BioMarin Shareholders Urged to Contact the Firm
If you purchased Aurora securities, have information, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles,
Esquire, at 615-587-7384, Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to
tmiles@timmileslaw.com or click here to participate. If you inquire
by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and
the number shares owned.
About Timothy L. Miles
Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles was recentely
awarded the recognition of American's Most Honored Lawyers 2020 --
Top 1% by the American Registry. Mr. Miles was also recently
selected by Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM as a 2020 Top Ranked
Lawyer and a 2020 Top Rated Litigator. Mr. Miles also maintains the
AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell(R), their highest rating
for both legal ability and ethics. Mr. Miles is a member of the
prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National
Trial Lawyers Association, a superb rated attorney by Avvo, a
recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of
America (2019) and recognized as a Distinguished Lawyer,
Recognizing Excellence in Securities Law, by Lawyers of Distinction
(2019-2020). Awards: Top Rated Litigator by
Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); Elite Lawyer of The South by
Martindale-Hubbell(R)and ALM (2019); Member of the Top 100 Civil
Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National Trial Lawyers Association
(2017-2019); AV(R)Preeminent™ Rating by
Martindale-Hubble(R)(2014-2020); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2018-2020); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation™ for
Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R)2015);
Lifetime Achievement Award by Premier Lawyers of America (2019);
Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer for (Avvo
2017-2020). Mr. Miles has authored numerous publications advocating
for shareholdings including most recently: Free Portfolio
Monitoring Services Offered by Plaintiff Securities Firms Provides
Significant Benefits To Investors (Timothy L. Miles, Dec. 3,
2019).
Contact:
Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
124 Shiloh Ridge
Hendersonville, TN 37075
Telephone: (855-846-6529)
Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com Website: www.timmileslaw.com [GN]
BOULDER VALLEY SD: Faces Suit From Special Education Students
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Bounds, writing for Daily Camera, reports that an education
attorney has filed a federal class action lawsuit against the
Boulder Valley School District, alleging remote learning and
current limited in-person options fail to meet the needs of
students with disabilities.
The lawsuit seeks to require Boulder Valley to provide full-time,
in-person learning as an option for children who receive special
education services. Last school year, about 12%, or 3,761, of the
district's students received those services.
"Special needs children have unique circumstances that make online
learning highly ineffective for them, especially for those kids who
are severely impacted," attorney Igor Raykin said in a written
statement. "Many special needs kids have gone without services for
months."
The lawsuit names two Boulder parents as plaintiffs. The parents
are Jon Caldara, whose 16-year-old son has Down syndrome and
attends Boulder High School, and Joost Schreve, whose son was
diagnosed with low-functioning, non-verbal autism. Caldara is
listed in the lawsuit as John Doe but allowed the Camera to publish
his name.
The lawsuit argues that both students require full-time, in-person
instruction to receive the free and appropriate public education
required by law. Additionally, according to the lawsuit, Schreve's
son is unable to attend in-person classes because he can't tolerate
wearing the required face covering.
The districtwide policies are "a systemic failure to comply with
the obligations of the (Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act)," according to the lawsuit.
Boulder Valley students had been attending school remotely since
March, when school buildings were closed in response to increasing
coronavirus cases.
Elementary students recently returned in-person four days a week,
while middle school and high school grades are being phased in two
days and one day a week, respectively. High school students in the
district's intensive special education programs may attend two days
a week in-person instead of one, according to the school district.
"The Boulder Valley School District has been working exceptionally
hard to serve all of its 31,000 students, including those with
special needs, during this crisis situation," spokesman Randy
Barber said in a written statement. "We understand for many
families the pandemic and its impact on schools has been extremely
challenging. BVSD remains dedicated to providing students with
special needs with a free appropriate public education."
Boulder Valley also provided information about its reintroduction
plans for special education students, as well as guidance provided
to schools on how to handle special education students who can't
tolerate face coverings. Modifications are determined on an
individual basis, according to the district.
When Schreve requested an accommodation to the face mask
requirement for his son, the lawsuit alleges, the district required
his son to go through "mask training" to attend in person. But his
parents had already worked extensively — and unsuccessfully —
with him and "mask training would be a waste of time and would
traumatize (him)," according to the lawsuit.
Raykin also is representing Caldara in a separate complaint filed
with the state in September alleging Boulder Valley is violating
federal special education law by not allowing his son to attend
school in person. Caldara said his son, who can't read or write and
has speech difficulties, can't access content online and isn't
receiving the in-person therapies he needs.
That complaint seeks an in-person private school placement, paid
for by the school district, as well as compensatory education
services, such as tutoring, to make up skills lost as a result of
extended school closures. [GN]
BUFFALO, NY: Police Union Seeks $100MM Damages in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Ingersoll and Geoff Kelly, writing for InvestigativePost,
report that Lieutenant Michael DeLong, suspended for calling a
woman a vile name outside of a West Side convenience store this
summer, wants a transfer from his command position in the city's
downtown police precinct.
One of his two preferences is an assignment to a command position
with the unit that investigates sex crimes, where the victims are
predominantly women.
In addition to his suspension this summer -- for calling the woman
a "fucking cunt" -- the department suspended DeLong in 2018 for an
incident described on his disciplinary card as "conduct-off duty
domestic."
DeLong has also put in for a transfer to the department's training
academy, where he would impart to cadets his 20 years experience on
the force.
Previous to the June incident, Internal Affairs had investigated
DeLong for allegations of misconduct 36 times.
Sound like those jobs are bad fits for DeLong? Like it should never
happen?
Under the terms of the department's contract with its police union,
it could.
Right now, DeLong has more seniority than any other lieutenant who
has requested a transfer to the two positions. Unless someone with
more seniority puts in for the jobs when an opening occurs, the
positions are DeLong's for the taking, per the union contract. His
suitability for the jobs is irrelevant, as is the opinion of the
police commissioner.
Seniority trumps all.
"Seniority [is] paramount," said John Evans, president of the
Buffalo Police Benevolent Association. "This department is based on
it, or the union is."
Seniority dictates assignments
An analysis by Investigative Post found the contract prescribes a
seniority system that dictates years on the job, not qualification
or management discretion, determines assignments and overtime. Key
positions such as the supervisors of the homicide, narcotics and
sex offense units and the training academy are determined by
seniority.
Seniority, Evans explained, protects officers from a "politically
motivated, vindictive administration" that might otherwise use
opportunities for advancement to reward or punish officers as they
see fit.
Without seniority, Evans told Investigative Post, the bosses could
"make your life hell."
Critics of the police department acknowledge the protection the
seniority system confers to workers, but argue that protection
extends too far when it prevents management from deciding what to
do with an officer such as DeLong.
"Seniority is on its face not bad," De'Jon Hall, a member of the
Buffalo Police Advisory Board, told Investigative Post. "But when
we don't take into account [officers'] discipline records -- when
we don't take into account what they have done in the community --
we're failing the people."
Hall said he was speaking for himself but not the board, which
advises the Common Council on police matters and this summer
released a slate of police reform proposals.
There's no immediate prospect of DeLong getting a transfer to
either position. A job would have to open up, through retirement or
the promotion or transfer of the lieutenants currently holding the
positions. The department then would select a successor from a
transfer list that personnel can opt in or out of monthly. It's
possible a lieutenant with more years on the job -- DeLong has 20
-- might request a transfer and move to the head of the line.
Neither DeLong's current suspension nor his past disciplinary
record would impede his transfer.
"[DeLong's] contractual rights remain in place," Evans wrote
Investigative Post in a text. "It will happen when/if someone
retires."
Union defends conduct
Efforts to reach DeLong for comment were unsuccessful. A department
spokesman declined to comment. But Evans, the PBA president,
defended his member.
"Well if you stretch those 36 incidents out over a 19-year career
-- almost 20 now -- compare that to the number of arrests he's had,
the actual number of interactions he had," Evans said.
Indeed, DeLong is on a list maintained by the Erie County District
Attorney of the department's 50 most active Buffalo cops, in terms
of arrests made and charges prosecuted.
He is also on the DA's Brady-Giglio list, a roster of law
enforcement officers whose disciplinary or legal history risks
undermining their credibility on the witness stand. There are 16
other Buffalo police officers on the list.
"This highlights the problem with the way that the union contract
has been negotiated in the past," said Hall, a member of the
Buffalo Police Advisory Board.
"The municipal government - our Common Council and our mayor -
really need to be more intentional about not allowing so much space
for the union president, John Evans, and others to dictate how our
citizens are policed."
Conduct frequently investigated
DeLong is currently suspended with pay. He was captured on video
insulting Ruweyda Salim, a West Side resident now attending
graduate school at Cornell University.
The incident occurred June 28 in the parking lot of a West Side
convenience store, where police responded to a report of a man
having a mental health crisis. Salim raised objections to the
manner in which the police were handling the situation.
"It would be completely negligent of Buffalo PD to place him
anywhere near our most vulnerable community members," Salim said
upon hearing about DeLong's transfer request. "He needs to be
fired."
DeLong's conduct will be reviewed by a third-party arbitrator.
His current suspension is the fifth of his 20-year career.
Disciplinary records obtained by Investigative Post under the
Freedom of Information Law show DeLong was suspended for 30 days in
November 2018 for an unspecified "domestic" incident; for one day
the year before for a violation of procedures; for one day in 2014
for off-duty misconduct; and for two days in 2009 for excessive use
of force. All suspensions were without pay.
Records also show DeLong was the subject of 36 misconduct
complaints lodged by citizens or the department prior to the June
incident. Twelve involve inappropriate use of force; three involved
domestic incidents, one listed as "domestic violence." Two of the
three complaints arising from domestic incidents were "not
sustained" by Internal Affairs.
In fact, most of the Internal Affairs inquiries -- 22 of them --
resulted in a finding of "not sustained," meaning there wasn't
sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegations.
DeLong and the police union are seeking $100,000 in damages from
the City of Buffalo as part of a class-action grievance related to
the department releasing his disciplinary records to the press.
Investigative Post and other media outlets received the records by
filing Freedom of Information requests after New York State
repealed a long-standing law, known as 50-a, which kept police
disciplinary information private.
"This violation has led to the Lieutenant's undue stress, ridicule
and unwanted negative attention," the PBA wrote in the grievance.
DeLong is back on the payroll due to state laws that mandate a
public employee be paid after 30 days, even if a suspension lasts
longer. According to public data, DeLong earned more than $151,000
last fiscal year and has a base salary around $89,000. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Court-Okayed $5.5B Settlement Deal Brought to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
settlement of US$5.5 billion for the monetary damages class in the
antitrust suit related to interchange fees has received final
approval from the trial court, and has been appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In 2005, a putative class of retail merchants filed antitrust
lawsuits against MasterCard and Visa and several issuing banks,
including Capital One, seeking both injunctive relief and monetary
damages for an alleged conspiracy by defendants to fix the level of
interchange fees.
Other merchants have asserted similar claims in separate lawsuits,
and while these separate cases did not name any issuing banks,
Visa, MasterCard and issuers, including Capital One, have entered
settlement and judgment sharing agreements allocating the
liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from all
interchange-related cases.
The lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes and were
settled in 2012.
The class settlement, however, was invalidated by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in June 2016, and the suit
was bifurcated into separate class actions seeking injunctive and
monetary relief, respectively.
In addition, numerous merchant groups opted out of the 2012
settlement and have pursued their own claims.
The claims by the injunctive relief class have not been resolved,
but the settlement of $5.5 billion for the monetary damages class
received final approval from the trial court, and has been appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Visa and MasterCard have also settled a number of the opt-out
cases, which required non-material payments from issuing banks,
including Capital One.
Visa created a litigation escrow account following its initial
public offering of stock in 2008 that funds settlements for its
member banks, and any settlements related to MasterCard-allocated
losses have either already been paid or are reflected in the
company's reserve.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
CAPITAL ONE: Pre-Trial Discovery in Consumer Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that
pre-trial discovery is ongoing in a consolidated consumer class
action suit alleging harm from the March 22 and 23, 2019
Cybersecurity Incident where an outside individual gained
unauthorized access to the Company's systems. The suit seeks
various remedies, including monetary and injunctive relief.
The company has been named as a defendant in approximately 73
putative consumer class action cases (61 in U.S. federal courts and
12 in Canadian courts).
The lawsuits allege breach of contract, negligence, violations of
various privacy laws and a variety of other legal causes of action.
The U.S. consumer class actions have been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings before a multi-district litigation panel in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division.
In the third quarter of 2020, the MDL panel denied in part and
granted in part Capital One's motion to dismiss and permitted
pretrial discovery to continue.
Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit Over Information Security Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company continues to defend itself from a putative class action
suit pending in the multi-district litigation panel in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria
Division. The suit alleges violations of certain federal securities
laws in connection with statements and alleged omissions in
securities filings relating to the company's information security
standards and practices.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from July
23, 2015 to July 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
costs and other relief.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
CIMIC: To Offload Thiess Stake, Faces Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elouise Fowler, writing for Australia Financial Review, reports
that cash-strapped CIMIC Group said it would offload half of Thiess
for $1.7 billion to $1.9 billion.
The sale will help cover cost blow-outs on projects and pay its
suppliers after CIMIC was forced to abandon supply-chain financing
schemes.
However S&P warned it would reduce business scale and diversity
because Thiess, a global mining services business, is CIMIC's
strongest profit and cash flow generator.
Australia's biggest construction firm has been in talks over the
sale of its mining division since July with Elliott Advisers, the
UK arm of US hedge fund Elliott Management.
The Spanish-controlled construction group has been trying to sell
Thiess -- its best performing division in 2019 with a profit of
$603 million -- for about a year but the transaction was held up by
the COVID-19 pandemic.
It is expected to generate a pre-tax gain for CIMIC of about $2.2
billion and a post-tax gain of some $1.4 billion, subject to
adjustments. CIMIC's share price climbed to $22.20 on Monday.
CIMIC told the market in October its operating cash flows had
weakened in the past 12 months, dropping 21 per cent to $922
million at September 30, from $1.16 billion a year earlier.
Along with joint venture partner John Holland, CIMIC has been
fighting Transurban over who will pay for about $1 billion in extra
costs on Melbourne's strife-plagued West Gate Tunnel project.
The group has also slashed its use of controversial financing
techniques by $705 million over the past nine months as it faces an
October 31 deadline to stop abusing Greensill Capital's
facilities.
Use of supply chain finance, also known as reverse factoring, lets
companies such as CIMIC boost cash flow by retaining money they owe
in bill payments. The company had a supply chain finance balance of
$146 million at September 30.
CIMIC disclosed its supply chain finance balance after it said its
January-September net profit fell 17 per cent to $473.6 million,
excluding comparison with 2019's $1.8 billion write-down of its
Middle East operations.
CIMIC had been using Greensill Capital's financing services to
delay paying its suppliers beyond the recommended 30 days. But
after criticism from regulators and scrutiny from The Australian
Financial Review, Greensill ordered all Australian clients to
either stay within the 30-day limit or stop using its services by
the end of the month.
Regulators have slammed the company for paying suppliers late and
CIMIC has been hit with a class action alleging it used supply
chain finance to mislead investors about the true nature of its
cash flows.
The company told the market the sale would reduce CIMIC's factoring
balance by approximately $700 million and its lease liability
balance by about $500 million.
American fund manager Elliott Advisors will jointly control Thiess
with CIMIC in line with a shareholders' agreement with governance
arrangements including Thiess' financial and dividend policies.
The transaction includes future share transfer options including a
potential initial public offering or sale to a third party and an
option for Elliott to sell its interest in Thiess back to CIMIC
between three and six years from completion.
"The sale agreement reflects Thiess' ongoing strategic importance
as a core activity for CIMIC," said CIMIC Group executive chairman
Marcelino Fernandez Verdes.
"It capitalises on the robust outlook for the mining sector and,
together with Elliott, we will pursue market opportunities in line
with Thiess' growth and diversification strategy."
Thiess is the world's largest mining services provider, delivering
open cut and underground mining in Australia, Asia, Africa and the
Americas.
Thiess provides services to 25 projects across a range of
commodities. It has a diverse fleet of plant and equipment of more
than 2200 assets, a team of around 14,000 employees and generates
annual revenues in excess of $4.1 billion.
The sale price implies an enterprise value for Thiess of about $4.3
billion. [GN]
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Tabizon Putative Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Covenant
Transport, Inc., a company subsidiary continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Richard Tabizon.
The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. ("Covenant
Transport") is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018,
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Richard Tabizon (a California
resident and former driver) who is seeking to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action.
The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for
failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of business
related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to pay
proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all
wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code.
Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending.
Covenant Transport intends to vigorously defend itself in this
matter.
Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of September
30, 2020."
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 1 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Credit Acceptance
Corporation (NASDAQ: CACC). 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.
Credit Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: CACC)
Class Period: November 1, 2019 to August 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
Credit Acceptance provides financing programs, and related products
and services to independent and franchised automobile dealers in
the United States. These programs are offered through a nationwide
network of automobile dealers who benefit from sales of vehicles to
consumers who otherwise could not obtain financing, as 95% of
Credit Acceptance's loans are considered subprime. The Company's
tag line is "We change lives!" and the Company asserts its
financing programs give consumers "a second chance" in improving
their credit scores.
The ugly truth about the Company's predatory and illegal business
practices was revealed on August 28, 2020 when the Massachusetts
Attorney General filed the Mass AG Complaint against Credit
Acceptance alleging that Credit Acceptance has, for years, been
making unfair and deceptive automobile loans to thousands of
Massachusetts consumers. In addition, the lawsuit specifically
alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false
and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed
securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company
engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well.
In response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG Complaint,
Credit Acceptance's stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%,
to close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on
September 1, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company was topping
off the pools of loans that they packaged and securitized with
higher-risk loans; (ii) that Credit Acceptance was making high
interest subprime auto loans to borrowers that the Company knew
borrowers would be unable to repay; (iii) that the borrowers were
subject to hidden finance charges, resulting in loans exceeding the
usury rate ceiling mandated by state law; (iv) that Credit
Acceptance took excessive and illegal measures to collect debt from
defaulted borrowers; (v) that, 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.
For more information on the Credit Acceptance class action go to:
https://bespc.com/CACC
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against Credit Acceptance Corporation ("Credit Acceptance" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:CACC) and reminds investors of the December 1,
2020 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Credit
Acceptance stock or options between November 1, 2019 and August 28,
2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
You can also contact Faruqi & Faruqi partner James Wilson toll free
at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310) or by emailing him at
to discuss your rights and options.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
that the Company was topping off the pools of loans that they
packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (2) that Credit
Acceptance was making high interest subprime auto loans to
borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay;
(3) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges,
resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by
state law; (4) that Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal
measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (5) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (6)
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.
On August 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura
Healey, filed the stunning Mass AG Complaint in Suffolk County
Superior Court against Credit Acceptance for allegedly making
unfair and deceptive auto loans to thousands of Massachusetts
consumers, providing investors with false or misleading information
regarding auto securities they offered, and engaging in unfair debt
collection practices.
Then, on August 31, 2020, the Massachusetts AG published a press
release announcing the lawsuit against Credit Acceptance. In the
press release, AG Healey stated, "This company made unaffordable
and illegal loans to borrowers, causing them to fall into thousands
of dollars of debt and even lose their vehicles. We are taking a
close look at this industry and we will not allow companies to
profit by violating our laws and exploiting consumers."
Additionally, the release points out that this lawsuit is part of
AG Healey's "review of securitization practices in the subprime
auto market-an industry-wide investigation that remains ongoing."
In response to the public disclosure of the Mass AG Complaint,
Credit Acceptance's stock price declined precipitously from $459.43
at close on August 28, 2020 down to $374.07 at the close of trading
on September 1, 2020-an $85.36 drop equating to an 18% two-day
decline in share price.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Credit Acceptance's conduct to contact the firm,
including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others. [GN]
DANYA B: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Danya B. The case is
styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Danya B, Case No. 1:20-cv-09326 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Danya B features innovative designs for home and garden decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
DR. DETAIL: Misclassifies Service Workers, Rathert Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRON RATHERT, on behalf of himself individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DR. DETAIL, LLC, a Texas
Limited Liability Company, HAROLD STARNES (also known as David
Starnes), in his individual and corporate capacity, Defendants,
Case No. 4:20-cv-03779 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2020) brings this
complaint against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful pay
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as an hourly
non-exempt "outside service" worker from approximately August 2019
to October 4, 2010, claims that the Defendants misclassified him
and other similarly situated "outside service" workers as
independent contractors.
Despite working over 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay
him and other similarly situated "outside service" workers' wages
for all hours they worked and overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. Although they were required by the
Defendants to record their hours worked, the Defendants manipulated
their timesheets to reflect that they only worked about 40 hours
per week.
In addition, the Defendants failed to provide them with a paystub
or with an itemization of the taxes and other deductions that were
improperly deducted from their paychecks.
Dr. Detail, LLC is a car washing and car detailing business owned
and operated by Harold Starnes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
Davina Bloom, Esq.
ROSENBERG | SPROVACH
3518 Travis St., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 960-8300
Fax: (713) 621-6670
E-mail: gregg@rosenberglaw.com
davina@rosenberglaw.com
DREAMGIRLS: Cota Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dreamgirls, et al.
The case is styled as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Dreamgirls, a California company;
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive; Case No. 3:20-cv-02185-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal.,
Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dreamgirls a women's boutique in San Diego, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
EASTPOINT RECOVERY: Preisler Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eastpoint Recovery
Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amir Preisler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Eastpoint Recovery Group, Inc., United Holdings Group LLC, John
Does 1-25, Case No. 0:20-cv-62268-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Eastpoint Recovery Group, Inc. is a professional receivables and
collections management firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Loot Boxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jams Batchelor, writing for gamesindustry.biz, reports that
Electronic Arts is facing more legal action over its use of loot
boxes and other randomised monetisation mechanics.
The latest is a class action lawsuit filed in Canada on September
30 by joint plaintiffs Mark Sutherland and Shawn Moore.
According to the filing, shared by gaming and esports law blog The
Patch Notes, Sutherland is a British Columbia resident who
purchased loot boxes in the Madden NFL series of games while Moore
hails from Ontario and spent money on the same monetisation model
in EA's NHL games.
The pair assert that the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits unlawful
gaming, betting, lotteries and games of chance.
Since EA does not hold a gambling license in the region, it is
accused of operating "an unlicensed, illegal gaming system through
their loot boxes."
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Moore, Sutherland and any other
Canadian customers who purchased, directly or indirectly, loot
boxes in almost every EA game that contains loot boxes.
There is a list of over 60 titles that stretches beyond the usual
suspects of FIFA, Madden and other sports franchises to include
Battlefield, Mass Effect, Need for Speed, Dragon Age and Plants vs
Zombies games as well.
The suit even targets mobile games such as Command & Conquer:
Rivals, Star Wars: Galaxy of Heroes and WarFriends, with a note
that there may be other titles containing loot boxes the plaintiffs
have yet to become aware of.
"The senior officers and directors of [Electronic Arts] were at all
times fully aware of the unlawful nature of their enterprise and
took active steps to carry it out," the filing reads.
"In the alternative, the senior officers and directors ... were
reckless or willfully blind to the unlawful nature of their
enterprise and took active steps to implement it."
The lawsuit is seeking, among other things, damages for Moore and
Sutherland under the Competition Act and a declaration that EA has
contravened the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
Earlier this year, Electronic Arts was targeted by a similar class
action lawsuit in California, which claims the Ultimate Team mode
in its sports games -- and the associated loot boxes -- violate the
state's gambling law. [GN]
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial Date Still Not Set in Nichols Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
in Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp., has not yet set a date for trial
to begin. The company was named as a defendant in the Nichols suit
filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama.
In July 2019, the company entered into settlement agreements with
all but one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an
aggregate amount of cash less than $0.1 million.
The remaining plaintiff alleges that some of the Company's former
officers and their former investment bank engaged in a scheme to
overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The
plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005.
However, the complaint has been amended from time to time,
including to request certification as a class action.
Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court.
The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court.
On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were
derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations.
On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial
court's dismissal on March 23, 2018.
On April 6, 2018, the company filed an application for rehearing
with the Alabama Supreme Court. On March 22, 2019, the Alabama
Supreme Court denied the company's application for rehearing and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The
court has not yet set a date for the trial to begin.
Encompass said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
case against the sole remaining plaintiff. Based on the stage of
litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we
understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of
the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we
continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or
settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible
to estimate an amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss
that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this
case."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based
post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home
Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth
Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in
January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama.
ENERGY SERVICES: Fails to Pay OT Wages to Engineers, Ward Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KEVIN WARD, individually and for others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGY SERVICES GROUP INTERNTIOAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-00171 (E.D. Va., November 6, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 2018 until
April 2019 as an hourly-paid design engineer in a Duke power plant
located in South Carolina.
The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked over 40 hours in a
week. Instead of receiving overtime compensation at one and
one-half times of his regular rate of pay for all the hours he
worked over 40 in a week, the Defendant paid him straight time rate
for the hours he worked.
Energy Services Group International, Inc. provides workers to
nuclear, fossil, and hydro power plants, and government projects.
[BN}
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
140 Virginia St., Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EQUITY BANCSHARES: N.Y. Court Tosses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
October 14, 2020, Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a lending company and
certain of its executives. Burr v. Equity Bancshares, Inc., No.
19-cv-4346 (AJN), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2020). Plaintiffs
alleged that the company failed to disclose problems with its
largest credit relationship -- involving two companies that
ultimately declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- and that its loan loss
reserves in its disclosures to the SEC were false and misleading.
The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any
actionable misstatement or omission.
With respect to allegations regarding the loan loss reserves, the
Court explained that a company's estimate of necessary loan loss
reserves is a statement of opinion. Therefore, such statements can
be actionable under the securities laws only if they are
subjectively false or if omitted factual information makes the
statement misleading to a reasonable investor; such statements are
not misleading, however, simply because a lender fails to disclose
facts that cut against its assessment. Id. at 8. The Court held
that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege subjective falsity,
because there was another explanation for the company's statements
that was at least as plausible -- that the company truly believed
it would recoup the value of its loans through liquidation of the
companies' assets. Id. at 9. The Court also observed that the
company had received meaningful concessions from the borrowers (in
the form of individual promissory notes) that supported a belief
that the loan value would be recouped. Id. at 9-10. The Court
further concluded that the company's loan loss reserves did not
imply specific facts about the company's knowledge or the
borrowers' cashflow, and that the company's disclosures described
an open-ended process involving various factors management could
consider in setting loss reserves. As a result, a reasonable
investor would understand that management might determine a loan
was not impaired even if the borrower had cashflow problems because
other factors might cause management to believe that repayment was
likely. Id. at 10-11.
Plaintiffs also complained about statements that the company made
suggesting it would never compromise its "financial integrity," or
that it "set the standard for best practices in risk management
techniques." However, the Court determined these statements were
vague non-actionable puffery, because they merely touted the
company's business philosophy or performance in the most general
terms. Id. at 12.
Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that it was
misleading for the company to state on an earnings call that it had
downgraded a credit relationship to "watch" and "substandard" for
unspecified $19 million and $9 million loans, without specifically
stating that the downgrade related to the company's "largest single
credit relationship" and that the borrowers had entered Chapter 11
bankruptcy. Id. at 13. The Court held these omissions did not
render the company's statement misleading, noting that details
disclosed in the company's annual report, such as the amount of its
classified and unclassified loans, could have allowed an investor
to determine how large a share the newly downgraded loans were of
the corporation's unclassified, classified, or total loans. Id. The
Court also concluded that the company's statement was not
misleading for not specifically referencing the bankruptcy
proceeding, particularly as the company stated that it did not
anticipate a credit impairment because the borrower was working to
restructure or liquidate its business. Id. at 13.
As plaintiffs had already amended their complaint once and failed
to show how further amendment could cure the defects in the
complaint, the Court concluded that any further effort to amend
would be futile and dismissed the action with prejudice. Id. at
14-15. [GN]
EVOLUS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS).
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.
Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS)
Class Period: February 1, 2019 to July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 15, 2020
Beginning in February 2019, Evolus embarked on a public campaign to
hype the market right before the commercial launch of its sole
leading product Jeuveau(TM). To secure an aggressive growth and an
rapid influx of revenue, Evolus disseminated dozens of public
statements in which they promoted Jeuveau(TM) as a proprietary
formulation of the botulinum toxic type A complex, purportedly
developed by Korean bioengineering company Daewoong through years
of clinical research and millions of dollars' worth of investment
in research and development. Among other things, Evolus promised
investors that it would attain the number two U.S. market position
within 24 months of launch.
The investing public learned the real truth about Jeuveau(TM) on
July 6, 2020 when the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC")
issued its Initial Final Determination in a case brought by
Allergan and Medytox against Evolus, alleging that Evolus stole
certain trade secrets to develop Jeuveau(TM). Coming as a great
surprise to the unsuspecting investors, the ITC Judge found that
Evolus misappropriated the botulinum toxin strain as well as the
manufacturing processes that led to its development and
manufacture. To make things even more catastrophic, the ITC Judge
recommended a ten-year long ban on Evolus' ability to import
Jeuveau(TM) into the United States and a ten-year long cease and
desist order preventing Evolus from selling Jeuveau(TM) in the
United States.
On this news Evolus's share price declined sharply, falling 37%
over the course of two trading days, to close at $3.35 on July 8,
2020. Following the news of the ITC's Initial Final Determination
and the subsequent price drop of Evolus's common shares, several
securities analysts downgraded Evolus's rating and significantly
lowered the Company's price target.
The complaint, filed on October 16, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the real source of
botulinum toxin bacterial strain as well as the manufacturing
processes used to develop Jeuveau(TM) originated with and were
misappropriated from Medytox; (ii) sufficient evidentiary support
existed for the allegations that Evolus misappropriated certain
trade secrets relating to the botulin toxin strain and the
manufacturing processes for the development of Jeuveau(TM); (iii)
as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court
action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM);
which in turn (iv) seriously threatened Evolus' ability to
commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the United States and generate
revenue; and (v) any revenues generated from the sale of
Jeuveau(TM) were based on Evolus' unlawful activities, including
the misappropriation of trade secrets and secret manufacturing
processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.
For more information on the Evolus class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/EOLS
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
EXELON CORP: Class Suits Over SEC Lobbying Probe Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company and
Commonwealth Edison Company continue to defend putative class suits
related to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Exelon and ComEd received a grand jury subpoena in the second
quarter of 2019 from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
District of Illinois (USAO) requiring production of information
concerning their lobbying activities in the State of Illinois. On
October 4, 2019, Exelon and ComEd received a second grand jury
subpoena from the USAO requiring production of records of any
communications with certain individuals and entities.
On October 22, 2019, the SEC notified Exelon and ComEd that it had
also opened an investigation into their lobbying activities.
On July 17, 2020, ComEd entered into a Deferred Prosecution
Agreement(DPA) with the USAO to resolve the USAO investigation.
Under the DPA, the USAO filed a single charge alleging that ComEd
improperly gave and offered to give jobs, vendor subcontracts, and
payments associated with those jobs and subcontracts for the
benefit of the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and
the Speaker's associates, with the intent to influence the
Speaker's action regarding legislation affecting ComEd's interests.
The DPA provides that the USAO will defer any prosecution of such
charge and any other criminal or civil case against ComEd in
connection with the matters identified therein for a three-year
period subject to certain obligations of ComEd, including payment
to the U.S. Treasury of $200 million, with $100 million payable
within thirty days of the filing of the DPA with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and an
additional $100 million within ninety days of such filing date.
The payments were recorded within Operating and maintenance expense
in Exelon's and ComEd's Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income in the second quarter of 2020.
The payments will not be recovered in rates or charged to customers
and ComEd will not seek or accept reimbursement or indemnification
from any source other than Exelon.
Exelon made equity contributions to ComEd of $100 million in August
2020 and $100 million in October 2020. On August 13, 2020, a motion
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by and on behalf of ComEd customers seeking to enjoin
ComEd from paying these funds to the U.S. Treasury and requiring
the U.S. government to establish a victims' restitution fund from
which the $200 million would be disbursed to ComEd customers. The
U.S. government and ComEd filed briefs in opposition to this
motion.
The motion remains pending, and at the U.S. government's direction,
the $200 million payment will not be transferred to the U.S.
Treasury until the court rules on the motion.
$100 million was recorded as Restricted cash and cash equivalents
on Exelon's and ComEd's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September
30, 2020 and $100 million was recorded as restricted cash in
October 2020.
Exelon was not made a party to the DPA, and therefore the
investigation by the USAO into Exelon's activities ends with no
charges being brought against Exelon.
SEC's investigation remains ongoing and Exelon and ComEd have
cooperated fully and intend to continue to cooperate fully with the
SEC. Exelon and ComEd cannot predict the outcome of the SEC
investigation. No loss contingency has been reflected in Exelon's
and ComEd's consolidated financial statements with respect to the
SEC investigation, as this contingency is neither probable nor
reasonably estimable at this time.
Subsequent to Exelon announcing the receipt of the subpoenas,
various lawsuits have been filed and two demand letters have been
received related to the subject of the subpoenas, the conduct
described in the DPA and the SEC's investigation, including:
- A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon and certain
officers of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in December
2019 alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon's SEC
filings related to ComEd's lobbying activities and the related
investigations.
The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of
the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd.
- A derivative shareholder lawsuit was filed against Exelon, its
directors and certain officers of Exelon and ComEd in April 2020
alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties also
purporting to relate to matters that are the subject of the
subpoenas and the SEC investigation.
The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this derivative action without
prejudice to refile on July 28, 2020.
- Three putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon
were filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020
seeking restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd
customers.
These three state cases were consolidated into a single action in
October of 2020.
In addition, on November 2, 2020, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB)
filed a motion to intervene in the state cases pursuant to an
Illinois statute allowing the CUB to intervene as a party or
otherwise participate on behalf of utility consumers in any
proceeding which affects the interest of utility consumers. The CUB
has requested that the court stay the state cases pending the
resolution of the federal cases.
- Four putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in federal court in the third quarter of 2020 alleging, among
other things, civil violations of federal racketeering laws.
In addition, the CUB filed a motion to intervene in these cases on
October 22, 2020 and filed a proposed complaint against ComEd in
conjunction with that motion alleging Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and other causes of action on
October 29, 2020.
- Two shareholders sent letters to the Exelon Board of Directors in
the third quarter of 2020 demanding, among other things, that the
Exelon Board of Directors investigate and address alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties and other alleged violations by Exelon and
ComEd officers and directors related to the conduct described in
the DPA.
Exelon said, "No loss contingencies have been reflected in Exelon's
and ComEd's consolidated financial statements with respect to these
matters, as such contingencies are neither probable nor reasonably
estimable at this time."
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
FLEX LTD: Dec. 3 Hearing Set on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 25, 2020, that the hearing on the motion to
dismiss a putative class action suit pending before the Northern
District of California has been set for December 3, 2020.
On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.
On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.
On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process.
On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 8, 2019, lead
plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On December 4, 2019,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 29, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and gave the lead plaintiff 30 days to
amend.
On June 29, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint. On July 27, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
The motion has been fully briefed and the defendants' motion to
dismiss is set for hearing on December 3, 2020.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.
FLUIDIGM CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fluidigm Corp. You can review
a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may
contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst,
Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.
If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ: FLDM)
Class Period: February 7, 2019 - November 5, 2019
Deadline: November 20, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/fldm
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;
(2) as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; 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.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 / info@bgandg.com [GN]
FORSTER & GARBUS: Donbaljaj Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Anis Donbaljaj, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP; Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC; Case No. 1:20-cv-09332
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company
specializes in collecting debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: To Settle Robocall Class Action for $9.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Freedom
Mortgage Corp. will pay $9.5 million to settle allegations by a
class of its clients who say they received unsolicited calls from
an automated telephone dialing system in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, under a deal that got final approval on
Oct. 20 by a federal court in New Jersey.
Joshua Somogyi and other plaintiffs alleged that, beginning in
2013, Freedom Mortgage used the automated system without prior
written consent to call their residential and cell phones and
continued to make calls after requests to stop. [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.
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]
H&J LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Mendez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a JOHN NAHABEDIAN
LANDSCAPING, name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown
to Plaintiff, and H&J LANDSCAPING CORP., and ELDER REYES, and JOHN
NAHABEBDIAN, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-05391
(E.D.N.Y., November 6, 2020) brings this collective action
complaint against the Defendant to recover damages for egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around June
2015 until in or around May 2020 to perform its primary duties that
includes grass cutting, leaf blowing, cleaning, and performing
other miscellaneous duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked more 40
hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay him minimum
wage for his hours worked from in or around January 2019 until in
or around May 2020 and did not pay him one and one-half times for
hours he worked over 40. Additionally, the Defendant willfully
failed to keep accurate payroll records and to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements as required by the FLSA
and NYLL.
The Corporate Defendants provide landscaping services. John
Nahabedian owns and operates ABC Corporation d/b/a John Nahabedian
Landscaping. Elder Reyes owns and operates H&J Landscaping Corp. In
or around 2018, John Nahabedian sold ABC Corporation to H&J
Landscaping Corp. Despite the sale, the Plaintiff's duties, pay
rate and method of payment remained the same under H&J Landscaping
Corp and Elder Reyes. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
HCC SPECIALTY: R&J Entertainment Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as R&J Entertainment LLC doing business as: Trapped
Escape Room, a California limited liability company; Trapped! LLC;
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others v. HCC
Specialty Insurance Company, an Oklahoma Corporation; Houston
Casualty Company, a Texas Corporation; Case No. 4:20-cv-06035, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on Nov. 6, 2020.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-03782 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance
Contract.
HCC Specialty Group is a market leader in providing specialized
insurance products for the sports, entertainment and promotional
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Jack Veroff, Esq.
Victor J. Jacobellis, Esq.
William F Merlin, Jr. , Esq.
MERIN LAW GROUP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 851-2300
Fax: (415) 960-3882
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin Cooper Mayer, Esq.
CROWELL & MORING LLP
3 Embarcadero Center, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 986-2800
Fax: (415) 986-2827
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
- and -
Jacqueline Clemence Karama, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 892-9295
Fax: (213) 892-9494
HDFC BANK: Posts Second-Quarter Profit Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Shankhyaneel Sarkar, writing for Bloomberg, reports that HDFC Bank
Ltd., India's largest private lender, posted a second-quarter
profit that beat analyst expectations due to strong loan growth and
a fall in bad loans.
Net income was 75.1 billion rupees (US$1.02 billion) for the three
months to September, up from 63.4 billion rupees a year earlier,
the lender said in a filing. The profit was 17% higher than the
64.1 billion rupees average estimate from 15 analysts, according to
the data compiled by Bloomberg.
The Mumbai-based lender said its loan book grew 16% in the
September quarter from a year earlier, out pacing an average 5.1%
rise for the nation's banking sector. CEO-designate Sashidhar
Jagdishan, who takes over from Aditya Puri later this month,
expects bad loans to rise to a decade high of 1.4-2.0%, he said in
August.
HDFC Bank's profit growth "continues to set the pace for healthy
fiscal 2021 profit, led by resilient revenue and an ability to defy
India's broader economic weakness, despite a change in CEO," said
Bloomberg Intelligence banking analyst Diksha Gera.
Shares in HDFC Bank were trading 0.8% higher at 9.32 a.m. in Mumbai
compared with a 1.5% rise in the main banking gauge.
HDFC Bank's results indicate that the nation's financial sector,
which has been hit hard by the fallout from the pandemic, may be
more resilient than expected. While a six-month moratorium and a
loan restructuring program has masked some of the bad loans, many
banks are being more cautious about lending to avoid further
weakness in asset quality.
HDFC Bank's gross bad-loan ratio narrowed to 1.08% as of September
end from 1.36% in the previous quarter. According to the lender,
the ratio would have been 1.37% if the nation's top court didn't
allow banks to continue with a relaxation in soured debt
recognition, over-riding the Reserve Bank of India's order.
A US law firm has filed a class action suit on behalf of HDFC Bank
shareholders over alleged improper lending practices in its
vehicle-lending unit. The bank had also delayed reporting details
of its loans, including its millions of retail borrowers' repayment
status, to one of India's biggest credit bureaus. [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: 2019 Class Action Settlement Hits Earnings
---------------------------------------------------------
Kyunghee Park, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that South
Korea's two biggest automakers are taking a 3.36 trillion won
(US$2.9 billion) earnings hit because of costs related to a 2019
settlement of a U.S. class-action lawsuit linked to alleged engine
defects.
Hyundai Motor Co. is setting aside 2.1 trillion won and affiliate
Kia Motors Corp. 1.26 trillion won in third-quarter earnings, the
companies said in separate regulatory filings Monday.
The suit was brought by U.S. drivers over an alleged defect that
could cause certain engines to catch fire. As part of the
settlement, the two automakers pledged to provide lifetime warranty
on the engines in the U.S. and South Korea.
The additional costs reflect a failure to estimate an appropriate
amount last year when the settlement was made, the automakers said.
The companies are also setting aside funds to cover additional
expenses that could arise from the lifetime warranties. Last year,
Hyundai took a one-time charge of about 600 billion won in its
third-quarter earnings, while Kia recorded an expense of about 310
billion won.
The provisions mean the two automakers may post net losses for the
third quarter, with their reports set to be released on Oct. 26.
Before the announcement, analysts on average estimated net income
of 890 billion won for Hyundai Motor and 490 billion won for Kia,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
More than 350 consumer complaints were reported to the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over non-collision
fires in Hyundai and Kia vehicles as result of the automakers'
"concealment of the defect," according to the class-action lawsuit
filed in December 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by law firm Hagens Berman. [GN]
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that Loop Industries has disclosed the
receipt of a subpoena from the US Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), which sent its shares down more than 6% in the
Oct. 18 extended trading session.
Loop (LOOP) said that the SEC is demanding information from the
plastics recycling company, including information regarding
testing, testing results and details of results from its Gen I and
Gen II technologies, as well as from its partnerships and
agreements.
"The SEC informed the Company that its investigation does not mean
that the SEC has concluded that anyone has violated the law and
that the investigation does not mean that the SEC has a negative
opinion of the Company," Loop said in a SEC filing.
In addition, Loop reported that on October 13, a purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against some of the company's officers. The
allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated
certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
"materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing
to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects, which caused the company's securities to
trade at artificially inflated prices". Th plaintiff seeks damages
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Loop's securities between
September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020.
Shares in Loop have tanked 36% over the past 5 days as short seller
Hindenburg Research issued a report calling the company a "smoke
and mirrors show with no viable technology" and announced that it
submitted its findings to regulators.
Hindenburg alleges that the recycling company, which has scored
agreements with major manufacturers, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo,
Evian, Danone and L'Oreal, has claimed breakthroughs, which "simply
don't exist". The short seller's investigation into Loop spanning
over 6 months, has included speaking with multiple former
employees, company partners, polymer/plastic experts, and
competitors.
One of the two analysts recently covering the stock, Roth Capital's
Gerry Sweeney said that the Hindenburg report "takes key
information and either misrepresents it or takes it out of context
to create an unfounded level of concern".
Sweeney, who reiterated a Buy rating on the stock with a $16 price
target (104% upside potential) added that a review of Loop's SEC
filings demonstrates that the report's allegations are "false or
taken out of context," which "should lead investors to question the
authenticity of the assertions if not the report in whole". [GN]
LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Faces Doyle Class Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DOYLE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00908-MRB (S.D.
Ohio, Nov. 10, 2020) is a class action suit arising out of a recent
cyberattack and data breach involving Luxottica's network of
eyecare facilities.
Through the data breach, an "unauthorized actor gained access to
[Defendant's] scheduling application," and through this access,
"the attacker may have accessed and acquired patient information."
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and countless other
members of the proposed class suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the
attack. In addition, the Plaintiff's sensitive personal information
-- which was entrusted to the Defendant, its officials and agents
-- was compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach,
says the complaint.
Information compromised in the data breach includes names,
demographic information, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
health insurance information, medical information, other protected
health information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), and additional personally
identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI") that Defendant collected and
maintained (collectively, the "Private Information").
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for
negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, negligence per se, breach of
express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and violation of
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Mr. Doyle is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
New London County, Connecticut.
The Defendant is an international eyewear conglomerate with its
American subsidiary and retail division headquartered in Mason,
Ohio. The company designs, sells, and licenses various brands of
eyewear, operates numerous retail and optometry chains, and also
operates one of the largest vision benefits insurance companies in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald S. Weiss, Esq.
RONWEISS ATTORNEY
6725 West Central Ave., M310
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (248) 737-8000
E-mail: ron@ronweissattorney.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
MINDBODY INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Shareholders Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Callaway, Esq., Tucker DeVoe, Esq., Anthony Fiotto, Esq.,
Matthew Harrington, Esq. and
Dylan Schweers, Esq., of Goodwin, in an article for JDSupra, report
that on October 2, 2020, in In re: Mindbody Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants'
motion to dismiss, in part, thereby allowing plaintiff shareholders
to continue their claims against two of three Mindbody Inc.'s
("Mindbody") officers in a class action challenging Mindbody's 2018
sale to Vista Equity Partners Management LLC ("Vista"). Relying on
the landmark Delaware Supreme Court decision in Revlon, Inc. v.
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., which held that fiduciaries of
a corporation must maximize the sale price of the enterprise,
plaintiffs allege that Mindbody's CEO and other officers breached
their fiduciary duties by "tilt[ing] the sales process for reasons
inimical to the stockholders' desire for the best price." Vice
Chancellor McCormick held that plaintiffs had succeeded in pleading
a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Mindbody's co-founder
and former CEO and the company's Chief Financial Officer, while
dismissing the claims against one of Mindbody's outside directors.
This class action stems from Vista's 2018 purchase of Mindbody, a
then-publicly traded cloud-based business management and wellness
service company, for a per share closing price of $36.50.
Mindbody's board unanimously approved the sale and entered into the
merger agreement on December 23, 2018, which included a thirty-day
"go-shop" period—December 24, 2018 through January 22,
2019—during which Mindbody could solicit and negotiate
alternative acquisition proposals. Following the go-shop period,
on January 29, 2019, Mindbody shareholders filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the validity of the impending February 14, 2019
shareholder vote on the merger.
In their consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the three
Mindbody defendants breached their fiduciary duties through several
conflicts of interest, including that the CEO was motivated by the
CEO's personal need for liquidity and the prospect of future
employment with Vista; that the CFO was also motivated by the
prospect of future employment; and that an outside director was
motivated by the desire of the investor who appointed him to exit
its Mindbody investment. Defendants moved to dismiss by attacking
plaintiffs' conflict theories. In addition, defendants asserted
that even if the court found that the plaintiffs had successfully
pleaded their Revlon claim, the court should still dismiss based on
the business judgment rule, per the Delaware Supreme Court's
holding in Corwin v. KKR Financial Holding LLC, because the merger
was ultimately ratified by a fully-informed, uncoerced stockholder
vote.
In denying defendants' motion to dismiss against the former CEO and
CFO, Vice Chancellor McCormick explained that, at the pleading
stage, a court need only decide whether it is "reasonably
conceivable" that the fiduciaries were subjectively affected by the
alleged conflicts. With regard to the former CEO, Vice Chancellor
McCormick found that plaintiffs' "liquidity-driven and
prospective-employment theories" worked in combination "to land a
powerful one-two punch," such that it was reasonably conceivable
that the CEO's interests were in conflict with those of Mindbody
shareholders. More specifically, the court found persuasive that
almost all of the CEO's pre-merger net worth was "locked inside"
Mindbody stock and that he made several statements regarding his
desire for Vista to retain the current senior management team.
Vice Chancellor McCormick also credited the allegation that the
former CEO tilted the sale process in Vista's favor during the
negotiations by lowering guidance to reduce Mindbody's stock price
and providing Vista with timing and informational advantages over
other bidders, such as only allowing a thirty-day go-shop period
that spanned the Christmas and New Year's Eve holidays.
Similarly, the court found that it was reasonably conceivable that
the defendant CFO breached his duty of care by acting with gross
negligence in helping the CEO tilt the scale in favor of Vista
during the sale process. Specifically, the complaint alleged that
the CFO delivered the lowered Q4 earnings guidance at the CEO's
direction and failed to provide a robust and substantive data room
to potential bidders during the go-shop period. The court
dismissed the claims against the outside director, finding that the
allegations in the complaint did not support a reasonable inference
that he took any action to further his personal interests.
Finally, the court disagreed with defendants' contention that
Corwin's business judgement rule defeated the Revlon claim. Vice
Chancellor McCormick found that the Corwin defense was not
available at the pleading stage because the complaint contained
sufficient allegations to suggest that the shareholder vote was not
informed. First, the complaint plausibly alleged that the CEO was
conflicted in his desire for liquidity and future employment with
Vista and that the CFO furthered such interests. Second, the
complaint included allegations that both the CEO and CFO caused the
company's proxy statement announcing the merger to omit material
information related to Vista's timing and information advantage.
And third, plaintiffs pleaded facts sufficient to suggest that the
CEO drove down the company's stock price by lowering quarterly
guidance and then failed to disclose actual quarterly financials
showing that the company had exceeded the lowered guidance. Based
on these well-pleaded allegations suggesting that the shareholder
vote was uninformed, the court rejected the defendants' argument
that the any conflicts were "cleansed" by the shareholder vote.
SECOND CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMS LOWER COURT'S DECISION ALLOWING
MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO SUBPOENA PRESIDENT TRUMP'S TAX
RECORDS
On October 7, 2020, in Donald J. Trump v. Cyrus R. Vance Jr. et
al., the Second Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court's decision
dismissing President Trump's complaint alleging that the Manhattan
District Attorney's grand jury subpoena issued to his accounting
firm, Mazars USA, LLP ("Mazars"), was overbroad and issued in bad
faith. In affirming the lower court's decision, the Second Circuit
granted the Manhattan District Attorney's motion to dismiss with
prejudice but stayed enforcement of the subpoena pending appeal to
the Supreme Court.
President Trump's latest challenge to the subpoena stems from a
2018 grand jury investigation into certain business transactions
involving the Trump Organization and affiliated entities and
individuals. While the full scope of the investigation is not
publicly known, the grand jury issued an August 1, 2019 subpoena to
the Trump Organization seeking documents from 2015 through 2018
relating to payments made to certain individuals and to Michael
Cohen's work for the President and the Trump Organization. The
Trump Organization complied with this subpoena, but did not turn
over any of President Trump's tax returns. As a result, on August
29, 2019, the grand jury issued another subpoena directed at
President Trump's accounting firm, Mazars, seeking financial
documents dating back to 2011.
Unlike the previous subpoena, the subpoena at issue requested,
among other documents, "tax returns and related schedules, in
draft, as-filed, and amended form" and "any and all statements of
financial condition, annual statements, periodic financial reports,
and independent auditors' reports." In response, President Trump
filed suit in federal court to block the enforcement of the
subpoena, claiming that he was immune from state criminal process
during his term in office. The case was previously before the
Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower courts' holding that
"absolute" presidential immunity from compliance with a state grand
jury subpoena was neither "necessary [n]or appropriate under
Article II or the Supremacy Clause."
On remand, President Trump filed an amended civil complaint, rather
than a motion to quash the subpoena, seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief against the enforcement of the subpoena by
alleging that it was both overbroad and issued in bad faith. The
overbreadth argument alleged (1) that the requested documents were
beyond the scope and timeframe of any payments made by Michael
Cohen in 2016 (i.e., the alleged "hush-money" payments) and were
therefore unrelated to the grand jury's investigation, and (2) that
the subpoena requested documents from a "broad array" of entities,
some of which were outside of New York, in addition to a large
volume of documents covering a nine-year period. President Trump
also argued that the subpoena was issued in retaliatory bad faith
after the President refused to produce his tax returns in response
to the original Trump Organization subpoena, as well as being based
on improper political motivations to harass and embarrass the
President.
In its decision affirming the district court's dismissal of
President Trump's complaint, the Second Circuit wrote that, to
prevail on an overbreadth challenge to a grand jury subpoena, the
moving party must show that "a particular category of documents can
have no conceivable relevance to any legitimate object of
investigation by the grand jury." As to the bad faith argument,
the court explained that grand juries are not "licensed to engage
in arbitrary fishing expeditions," but a grand jury subpoena
"enjoys a presumption of validity" that requires a "strong showing
to the contrary" to defeat that presumption. The Second Circuit
also noted that, while it is unusual for a court to receive a civil
complaint challenging a subpoena, as opposed to a motion to quash,
a court is still required to apply the same standard to claims of
overbreadth of a subpoena or bad faith as it would for any other
motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court
further held that, at the motion to dismiss stage, the President
must allege "well-pled facts that, if accepted as true, would be
sufficient to rebut [a grand jury subpoena's] presumption of
validity."
Based on the presumptive validity of grand jury subpoenas and the
"extremely broad nature of grand jury investigations," the Second
Circuit rejected President Trump's overbreadth and bad faith
arguments. As to the overbreadth argument, the Second Circuit
agreed with the lower court that the grand jury's investigation was
not solely limited to the 2016 Michael Cohen payments and rejected
the argument that, because the Cohen payments were one focus of the
investigation, they must have been the only focus. Accordingly,
the Second Circuit held that, because the allegations concerning
the Michael Cohen payments were not well pled, the President's
remaining allegations amounted to "generic objections that the
subpoena is wide-ranging in nature," and the court further held
that "even if the subpoena is broad," the complaint failed
plausibly to allege that it was "overbroad."
Finally, regarding President Trump's retaliatory bad faith
argument, the Second Circuit found that the allegations failed the
plausibility test because the complaint "amount[ed] to nothing more
than labels and conclusions" of improper motive. The court also
found it persuasive that any documents produced pursuant to the
subpoena would be protected from public disclosure by grand jury
secrecy rules, which would greatly reduce the plausibility of the
allegation that the District Attorney was "acting out of a desire
to embarrass the President."
NINTH CIRCUIT REVERSES LOWER COURT'S DECISION DISMISSING SECURITIES
FRAUD SUIT AND JOINS SIXTH CIRCUIT IN APPROACH TO LOSS CAUSATION IN
SECURITIES FRAUD SUITS
On October 8, 2020, in HMEPS v. BofI Holding Inc. et al., a divided
Ninth Circuit panel reversed a lower court's decision granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss, thereby allowing the class action
plaintiffs to continue their securities fraud suit against
defendant BofI Holding, Inc. (now known as Axos Bank) ("BofI"). In
a 2 to 1 opinion, the panel disagreed with the lower court that
shareholder plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead loss
causation. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joined the Sixth Circuit
in rejecting a categorical rule that allegations in a different
lawsuit, standing alone, can never qualify as a "corrective
disclosure" to prove the loss causation element in a securities
fraud suit. The dissenting opinion would have affirmed the lower
court, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss and requiring
plaintiffs to provide external confirmation of the alleged fraud in
the separate lawsuit for them to count as a corrective disclosure,
noting that such "unsubstantiated allegations" may turn out to be
"nothing more than wisps of innuendo and speculation" that should
not serve as the basis of a securities fraud lawsuit.
The plaintiffs' securities class action is based on BoFI's 47%
decline in stock price between August 2015 and February 2016. The
shareholders allege that BoFI executives committed securities fraud
by falsely portraying the company as a safer investment than it
actually was. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that
defendants made false or misleading statements promoting the
bank's: i) conservative loan underwriting standards; ii) internal
controls; and iii) robust compliance standards. To satisfy the
loss causation element, plaintiffs relied on the
fraud-on-the-market theory, which allows suing shareholders to
prove a defendant's fraud by showing evidence of "corrective
disclosures" to the market (i.e., that the "truth" is revealed)
that then cause a decline in the company's stock price. According
to plaintiffs, the first corrective disclosure was a whistleblower
suit filed against BoFI alleging rampant fraud at the bank, the
details of which were published in a New York Times article on the
same day of the filing. As to the second corrective disclosure,
plaintiffs argue that it was in the form of eight anonymous blog
posts on the website Seeking Alpha. The blog posts all relied upon
publicly available information to describe potential regulatory
violations and questionable loan origination partnerships.
The district court found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded
five of the six required elements to prove securities fraud,
including that defendants made misstatements related to its
underwriting standards and internal controls. As for the sixth
element, loss causation, the district court disagreed with
plaintiffs that the whistleblower lawsuit and blog posts
constituted corrective disclosures that caused the company's stock
price to decline. The district court reasoned that the
whistleblower's allegations were "unconfirmed accusations of fraud"
and therefore "draw the market's attention to smoke, but without
more, [] do not reveal any fire." With regard to the blog posts,
the district court concluded that they could not serve as
corrective disclosures because nothing was "revealed" given that
they all relied on previously disclosed public information.
The Ninth Circuit panel unanimously agreed with the district court
that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that defendants made
misstatements concerning BofI's underwriting standards, internal
controls, and compliance infrastructure. The panel members also
all agreed with the district court's finding that the blog posts
did not qualify as corrective disclosures to prove loss causation.
The panel was divided, however, on whether a whistleblower suit
could constitute a corrective disclosure to prove loss causation.
Two of the three panel members were persuaded that the market found
the allegations credible as illustrated by the fact that BofI's
stock price dropped by 30% following the whistleblower suit and
corresponding New York Times article. The majority reasoned that a
price drop of that magnitude would not be expected in response to
whistleblower allegations perceived to be unworthy of belief and,
thus, "if the market treats allegations in a lawsuit as
sufficiently credible to be acted upon as truth . . . then the
allegations can serve as corrective disclosure." As a result, the
majority found that plaintiffs had adequately pleaded loss
causation and reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the
action with prejudice and remanded for further proceedings.
In his dissent, Judge Kenneth K. Lee rejected the majority's
decision that the whistleblower suit was a corrective disclosure
and agreed with the district court that the shareholders should
have to provide external confirmation of the suit's allegations to
adequately prove loss causation.
SDNY JUDGE DISMISSES PROPOSED CLASS ACTION AGAINST WUXI PHARMATECH
ALLEGING SECURITIES FRAUD RELATED TO $3.3 BILLION GO-PRIVATE MERGER
On October 14, 2020, in Altimeo Asset Management v. WuXi PharmaTech
(Cayman) Inc. et al., a federal judge in the Southern District of
New York dismissed a proposed securities class action alleging that
WuXi PharmaTech Inc. ("WuXi"), a pharmaceutical research and
development company, defrauded investors by hiding its plans to
relist three of its subsidiaries on foreign stock exchanges
following its 2015 go-private merger. In granting the defendants'
motion to dismiss with prejudice, the court found that WuXi's proxy
materials had disclosed the very information that plaintiffs
alleged was hidden from investors.
Plaintiff shareholders' securities fraud claim was based on the
December 10, 2015 merger between WuXi and Ally Bridge Group
("Ally"), in which Ally took WuXi private for a $3.3 billion
closing sale price. A majority of WuXi's shareholders voted to
approve the merger, and Plaintiffs alleged that, shortly
thereafter, WuXi took steps to spin off three of its subsidiaries
on various foreign stock exchanges. In May 2018, WuXi's three
subsidiaries completed their IPOs on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange
and Shanghai Stock Exchange. Following the spin-offs and
relisting, several news articles estimated that the total market
value of the three WuXi subsidiaries was nearly $31 billion.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that WuXi and Ally had "concrete
plans" prior to their merger to spin off the subsidiaries and
relist them on foreign stock exchanges, but failed to disclose
these facts to its shareholders in an effort to depress the merger
price. Plaintiffs cited to news article that discussed the merger,
spin-offs, and surrounding circumstances, including the fact that
the spin-offs and relisting occurred relatively soon after the
merger. Plaintiffs also alleged that the company and its officers
made false or misleading statements in proxy materials related to
the merger, specifically concerning: i) the company's intention to
relist the subsidiaries; ii) its viable alternatives to the merger;
iii) its reasons for the merger; and iv) the overall fairness of
the merger price. The common thread running through all four
categories of alleged misstatements was plaintiffs' allegation that
WuXi and Ally had concrete plans prior to the merger to relist the
subsidiaries, which they allegedly intentionally concealed to
decrease the merger price.
The court disagreed. In granting the defendants' motion to dismiss
with prejudice, the court relied heavily on the fact that WuXi's
proxy materials filed with the SEC before the shareholder vote
disclosed that "the buyer group may consider re-listing the
Company's equity on the Chinese or Hong Kong stock exchanges, which
may have higher valuations." Based on this disclosure, the court
found that WuXi clearly disclosed the possibility of a future
relisting at a higher valuation, and as such, reasonable investors
would have understood that possibility. Further, the court held
that the vast majority of news articles plaintiffs contended
support an inference of a "concrete plan to relist" consist of
"speculation by analysts or comments made long after the merger."
In sum, the court agreed with defendants that "this case is
predicated on a disclosed omission," and therefore held that
plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a securities fraud violation.
[GN]
MISSOURI: Wilkinson Walsh Helps Win $50MM Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reports that in Wilkinson Walsh
LLP's first major pro bono case, the litigation boutique joined
forces with two nonprofit advocacy groups to win a landmark $50
million settlement in which the Missouri Department of Corrections
and its prison health care provider agreed to give inmates
suffering from hepatitis C much-needed treatment.
A Missouri federal judge on Aug. 25 granted preliminary approval of
the deal, which calls for the Missouri DOC and Corizon LLC to spend
about $50 million over the next eight years to provide a new class
of drugs to prisoners. The drug essentially acts as a cure for
hepatitis C, a life-threatening disease which can lead to liver
cancer and cirrhosis.
The deal, which awaits final approval following a fairness hearing
expected to be held later in October, also requires the defendants
to provide monitoring of high-risk individuals, training of prison
medical staff and quarterly updates on treatment progress. The bulk
of the claims in the suit alleged violations of the Eighth
Amendment, which bars deliberate indifference to prisoners' medical
needs.
Shortly after the Eighth Circuit issued a pivotal December 2018
ruling in the patients' favor, the two nonprofits, MacArthur
Justice Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri,
contacted the Washington, D.C.-based litigation boutique through
mutual connections. Wilkinson Walsh was quickly onboard, although
not without some convincing of the partners by associate Betsy
Henthorne, who spearheaded the mediation efforts that resulted in
the deal.
"I may have pushed [our partners] a little bit," she said. "We are
a pretty small firm and the more common pro bono project [has been]
smaller cases with single defendants," such as
compassionate-release prisoner cases, landlord-tenant eviction
defense cases and child custody cases.
"We had never taken on a big federal class action; it's not
something we'd done before," she said.
The settlement is the culmination of litigation that began in
December 2016, according to Amy Breihan of the MacArthur Justice
Center. The criminal justice advocacy group joined with the ACLU of
Missouri to file a class action that was certified in July 2017.
Breihan, who noted that the pending settlement is among the first
in the nation to successfully obtain medical treatment for
prisoners with hepatitis C, said the favorable ruling from the
Eighth Circuit regarding certification of the class has provided a
valuable blueprint for prisoner advocacy groups. The appeals court
found that the prisoners' medical needs were sufficiently similar
so as to justify class certification.
"It was helpful to people in other states who were filing similar
lawsuits to be able to say, 'Even the conservative Eighth Circuit
ruled in favor of prisoners,'" she said. "Attorneys who work on
these cases in various states work with each other, lean on each
other."
Breihan said shortly after receiving the Eighth Circuit's blessing
it dawned on them that they were going to have to do "voluminous
and complex" discovery given the potential 3,500 class members, the
necessary scientific information and a jury trial that could take
weeks.
"We felt it made more sense to bring in more people and Wilkinson
Walsh is brilliant and they are great at trying cases," she said.
"So few cases go to trial these days so finding a firm that really
prioritizes trying cases is somewhat unique. They also have smart
and accomplished attorneys who are working there and so we knew
they would be committed partners."
The firm moved quickly to handle several depositions and then,
after initial settlement negotiations fizzled, they lodged a bid
for a preliminary injunction to get some relief for their clients,
many of whom were dying from the disease.
The August 2019 preliminary injunction hearing was encouraging,
Henthorne said.
"Coming out of the preliminary injunction hearing we felt good
about both what we showed the defendants we could do in the
courtroom and what they would be up against at trial," she said.
"We also really made some substantive legal points about what was
problematic about their position and poked holes in what their
witnesses were saying. So we felt good both about our prospects of
getting our preliminary injunction ruling and also for further
settlement negotiations."
After months of deposing top Corizon and Missouri DOC officials and
before the judge ruled on the preliminary injunction bid, the
parties forged an agreement in principle following a two-day
mediation session in February.
The next few months entailed hammering out the details of a
settlement, which Henthorne said was difficult due to the fact that
many of her clients urgently needed proper medical treatment.
"The timing issue was the hardest," she said, "where you're
actually dealing with a disease that is progressing, with actual
real people who are getting sicker every day."
Henthorne said they tried to move the case forward as quickly as
possible but sometimes couldn't because the defendants didn't share
their sense of urgency and communicating with their incarcerated
clients, particularly during a pandemic, was no simple task.
And although both Wilkinson Walsh and the lead named plaintiff
wanted to go to trial, the urgent need for the sickest prisoners
motivated them to take the deal.
"How do we get the sickest people treated ASAP and how do we make
sure everybody gets treated?" she said. "Once we had a deal that
reflected that, we felt like we had to take it."
The plaintiffs are represented by Anthony E. Rothert, Jessie
Steffan, Omri E. Praiss and Gillian R. Wilcox of American Civil
Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation, Amy E. Breihan and Megan G.
Crane of Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center and Betsy
Henthorne, Amelia I.P. Frenkel, Anastasia Pastan, Meghan Cleary and
Tamarra Matthews Johnson of Wilkinson Walsh LLP.
The Missouri Department of Corrections is represented by Zachary T.
Buchheit, John W. Taylor and Jennifer Baumann of the Missouri
Office of the Attorney General.
Corizon is represented by William R. Lunsford and Matthew B. Reeves
of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC and Dwight A. Vermette of Eckenrode
Maupin.
The case is Michael Postawko et al. v. Missouri Department of
Corrections et al., case number 2:16-cv-04219, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Missouri. [GN]
MRS BPO: Faces Skvarla FDCPA Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SKVARLA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 159552/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct, November 6, 2020)
brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
illegal collection practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt or financial obligation for a JP
Morgan Chase Bank N.A. account that was placed with the Defendants
for purposes of collection.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a collection
letter dated November 6, 2019 from the Defendants offering the
Plaintiff three options to settle his debt. However, the collection
letter is false, deceptive and/or misleading because the Defendant
allegedly created a sense of urgency characteristic of one-time
take-it-or-leave-it settlement by requiring the Plaintiff to settle
his debt in less than 14 days and by stating in the letter that
they are not obligated to renew its offers, which could influence
the Plaintiff's financial decision and decision to accept one of
the offers out of fear that they might not be renewed.
Mrs BPO collects or attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts
owed to others. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alla Gulchina, Esq.
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
150 Morris Ave., 2nd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Tel: (973) 379-7500
E-mail: Francis@SternThomasson.com
Alla@SternThomasson.com
- and –
Simon Goldenberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SIMON GOLDENBERG PLLC
818 East 16th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11230
Tel: (347) 640-4357
E-mail: simon@goldenbergfirm.com
MYERS INDUSTRIES: Traxler Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
REBEKAH TRAXLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MYERS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-02514 (N.D. Ohio, November 6, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful
pay practices and policies in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA).
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees as non-exempt employees and
paid them on an hourly basis. However, the Defendant did not
compensate them for the time they spent on the Dayforce and Kazoo
applications, an average of 10-15 minutes each day, which
constituted as an integral part of their principal activities. As a
result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were
not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked
over 40 each workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records
of the unpaid work performed by the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees.
The Plaintiff began working with the Defendant since August 30,
2016.
Myers Industries, Inc. is a diversified, international plastics
manufacturer of returnable packaging, storage, and safety products
and specialty molding. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8 N. Court St., Suite 403
Athens, OH 45701
Tel: (847) 986-5889
Fax: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
NEW YORK BAGELS: Dominguez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
BERTIN DOMINGUEZ, ISRAEL ACOLTZI, JOSE ALEJANDRO MOLINA LUNA, LUIS
GONZALO CARCHI, and RUBEN CEGUEDA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. NEW YORK BAGELS EATERY INC. (D/B/A NY
BAGELS & CAFE), NYU BAGELS & CAFE, INC. (D/B/A NY BAGELS & CAFE),
CHON, JOO S, and PYONG, SU SON, Case No. 1:20-cv-09427 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 10, 2020) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the N.Y. Labor
Law.
The Plaintiffs contend that they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium.
The Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, delivery workers, bagel
maker, food preparer, and grill worker at the Defendants' deli.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a bagel shop, located at
587 1st Ave, New York under the name "NY Bagels & Cafe." The
individual Defendants Chon are the owners, managers, principals, or
agents of the Defendant Corporations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NEW YORK: Parents File Class Action Over Remote Learning
--------------------------------------------------------
Selim Algar, writing for New York Post, reports that a group of
fed-up city parents have sued the city over the lack of full time
education in the nation's largest school system.
The families, who filed the class action suit on Oct. 21, are
stressing the damage being wrought by screen-dependent remote
learning in making their demand.
Crystal Lia, 39, a parent of three, said the format is draining her
family of both resources and educational value.
"My husband is a city worker," she said on Oct. 21. "I'm an
essential employee, I run a business on Staten Island. We cannot
physically teach three kids in three different grades. We cannot
afford to pay our bills by staying home with three kids in three
different grades."
Erin Ulitto, 34, said her special needs son is receding both
academically and socially because of the lack of full-time
schooling.
"He doesn't know how to play with other kids," she said. "He
doesn't know how to be with other kids. The DOE is failing him. He
needs to go to school five days a week, full time every single day,
or he will not be able to be successful."
City Councilman Joe Borelli joined the plaintiffs in front of
Richmond County Supreme Court on Oct. 21 where he said the case was
filed.
"Remote education, watching a YouTube video, is not meeting the
constitutional requirement for a sound, basic education," Borelli
said. "Watching videos all day is not the same as being in school
and socializing and interacting with your teachers and interacting
with your peers and having the services in many cases that your
child's education plan guarantees."
He added that the suit will test the DOE's tacit suggestion that
remote learning serves a passable substitute for in-person
instruction.
"I'd be shocked if the DOE actually made the argument that remote
education was somehow meeting this constitutional requirement,
because that would rock the foundation of public education," he
said. "Why would we need teachers anymore? Why would we need class
sizes? It wouldn't matter."
Attorney Louis Gelormino, who will handle the case, said that
parents who are not comfortable with the resumption of full-time
classroom education should still have the option to learn from
home.
Frustrated parents peeved with DOE's coronavirus testing approach
"But we're demanding that the City give us the option of putting up
kids in school five days a week, 180 days a year, like they should
be," he said.
Borelli said the lawsuit was necessitated by what he said was a
badly disordered DOE approach to the new academic year.
"We are extremely frustrated," he said. "We are at our wits' end.
And simply having the DOE pull things out of the sky in order to
accommodate students is just not enough."
Borelli said that current classroom teaching has also been
compromised this year, with kids being "babysat" rather than
adequately taught by live teachers.
Other large districts -- including Dallas and Miami -- are already
moving towards a full reopening, he noted.
Mayor de Blasio partially revived city schools this year with a
model that has students alternate between home and classroom
learning.
Hizzoner has stressed minimal infection rates in schools in recent
weeks, with students showing a 0.17 infection rate thus far in
mandatory school testing.
The DOE had a more positive assessment of the state of the school
system than Borelli on Oct. 21.
"This is a petty distraction from real news: the nation's largest
school system is open for in-person learning, and students in every
grade are receiving high-quality instruction five days a week,"
said spokesperson Danielle Filson. "The percent of positive tests
at schools has been very low, and our safety protocols are
specifically designed to continue to keep the risk at bay and to
align with guidance issued by federal, state and local health
experts. We will review the suit." [GN]
NEXTCURE INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 20 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against NextCure Inc. You can review
a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you may
contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst,
Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.
If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
NextCure, Inc. (NASDAQ: NXTC)
Class Period: NextCure securities acquired: (1) between November 5,
2019 and July 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and (2)
pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed with the SEC on November 12 and 18, 2019
Deadline: November 20, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/nxtc
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts regarding its leading treatment
candidate, NC318. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
statements made by Defendants concerning the effectiveness of
NC318, the responses observed in patients treated with NC318, and
NC318's potential to treat patients' refractory to PD-1 therapies
were false and misleading.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 / info@bgandg.com [GN]
NISSAN: Faces Class Action Over Emissions Warranties
----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan
class action lawsuit alleges the automaker failed to identify the
car parts that should be classified as emissions warranty parts and
high-cost emissions warranty parts under California's emission
control system warranty requirements.
Those parts are covered in California under the emissions warranty
for 7 years and 70,000 miles.
According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, the complaint
includes:
"All persons in California who, within the last four years, have
been owners or lessees of Nissan MY 2011 through MY 2017 Juke
vehicles and who have paid for repairs and parts for the fuel pump
that should have been covered under Nissan's 'high-priced warranted
parts' 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty."
The plaintiffs claim Nissan doesn't want to pay out for warranty
repairs, so the automaker limits the parts which should be covered
under the emissions warranty.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges Nissan limits the high-cost
emissions warranty parts that should be covered for 7 years and
70,000 miles, including Juke fuel pumps.
The plaintiffs say the California Code of Regulations (CCR) clearly
define how Nissan should identify which parts should be covered as
emissions parts, and which parts should be covered by the 7-year
70,000-mile warranty.
"A 'warranted part' is defined as, 'any part installed on a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle engine by the vehicle or engine
manufacturer, or installed in a warranty repair, which affects any
regulated emission from a motor vehicle or engine which is subject
to California emission standards.'" -- CCR Section 2035 -- 1990 and
subsequent model year vehicles
According to the lawsuit, any part that either affects a vehicle's
emissions or causes a vehicle's on-board diagnostic malfunction
indicator light to illuminate is considered a "warranted part." If
a part is a warranted part, the part shall have a 3-year
50,000-mile warranty.
However, if the part is a "high-priced" warranted part, allegedly
the part, the labor cost of diagnosing the part failure and the
labor cost of replacing the part shall have a 7-year 70,000-mile
emissions warranty.
Nissan has allegedly omitted from the warranty booklets all the
parts that should be identified as emissions related warranty parts
covered under the 3-year 50,000-mile warranty, and all of the
high-priced warranted parts that should be covered under the 7-year
70,000-mile warranty.
Nissan Juke customers allegedly are told by California dealerships
that fuel pumps aren't covered under emissions warranties when they
should be, leaving owners and lessees to pay for repairs or
replacements.
The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California - Western Division:
Harris, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Pomerantz LLP, and the Law Office
of Robert L. Starr. [GN]
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Several Investor Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that losing a family member is always a moment of
sadness and often trauma, but when the family member passes away on
vacatio, it is more so. Every year, there are about 200 deaths on
cruise ships. Some of those passengers may have died of natural
causes. People who take cruises tend to be older and the cruises
can go on for months.
However the COVID-19 pandemic has seen cruise lines particularly
hard hit by lawsuits following the pandemic, with some cruises
faced lengthy quarantines at sea, and cruise ship operations were
suspended from all US ports of call.
Observers have indicated that the lawsuits and class actions taken
to date against cruise lines, airlines, insurance companies and
both federal and state governments are just the tip of the iceberg
when it comes to future litigation.
"This early litigation is really, from our vantage point, the tip
of the iceberg. The level of litigation could really go into so
many different directions," Harold Kim, president of the U.S.
Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, told USA Today in a recent
report.
But of course COVID-19 is not the only reason attributed to cruise
line deaths.
Many of the people who die on cruises pass away because of the
negligence of the cruise line and some of them have been aboard the
Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL), who have faced a number of lawsuits
including investor lawsuits.
In March, a shareholder in NCL filed a stock drop securities class
action in the Southern District of Florida, which challenged
statements made by NCL on and after February 20, 2020, in which the
company allegedly minimized the likely impact of the coronavirus
outbreak on NCL's operations and omitted information regarding
allegedly deceptive sales practices that were undertaken after the
pandemic broke.
As the Washington Post recently reported, the spate of recent
lawsuits against the travel industry has helped passengers facing
the wide variety of legal issues they face when travelling and
sustaining injury or worse.
How a Cruise Line Can be Responsible for Wrongful Death
Any business has a Duty of Care to its customers. Duty of Care
means that each individual has an obligation to take other people's
well-being under consideration. A cruise line may have neglected
its duty of care if someone drowned in their swimming pool, ate
food from the ship's kitchen that killed them, or slipped and fell
on the deck.
The range of potential injuries and fatalities as a result of
negligence is considerable and has also contributed to the surge of
lawsuits against cruise lines, just as their popularity --
pre-COVID -- had surged.
Deaths from Passengers Falling Overboard
Although it does happen, very few passengers fall overboard due to
the negligence of the cruise line. when cruise ships are built,
every precaution is taken to ensure that people who are supposed to
be on the boat stay on board, and those who are not, will not be
able to climb aboard. People who fall overboard tend to be engaging
in horseplay. Several people a year also commit suicide by throwing
themself into the ocean.
There are, however, workers who die or are injured in the line of
duty. They may fall overboard if they are asked to perform work
that is unsafe.
COVID's effect on Cruise Ship Wrongful Death Cases
The Coronavirus has had a huge impact on the cruise industry.
People have acquired the illness on cruise ships and some have lost
their lives because of it. Certainly, their immediate family
members could sue the line for wrongful death.
There were several cruise ships that stranded crew members at sea.
Not only did some of these workers die from COVID, but several also
committed suicide because they had no idea when they were coming
back and the company refused to pay for charter flights to get them
home safely.
What to do if Your Loved One Was Killed Aboard a Ship
Maritime laws can be somewhat confusing when it comes to personal
injury. If you have lost a loved one to a shipboard accident you
must hire an attorney in the state out of which the cruise line
does business. If you were to file a claim against Norwegian Cruise
Lines, you would have to find a lawyer in Miami, Florida because
that is where they operate from.
Normally one would have two years to file a wrongful death suit in
the Sunshine State, but you may have less time if the accident took
place aboard a cruise ship. There are often provisions included in
a ticket limiting the number of months a person or their family has
to file a suit for personal injury or wrongful death.
The most important thing you need to do when you want to sue a
company for wrongful death is to hire an experienced personal
injury lawyer. You can learn more about common Norwegian lawsuits
here from Florida-based legal specialists operating in the travel
business. [GN]
OLD REPUBLIC: Sued for Refusing to Reimburse Cancelled Trips
------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that
Old Republic Insurance Company of Canada has been hit with a class
action lawsuit over its refusal to reimburse cancelled school trips
in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to Samfiru Tumarkin, the law firm which launched the
class action, the pandemic and the resulting government travel
advisories forced tour company Explorica Canada to cancel its
planned trips. But when Old Republic was approached to cover the
cost of the trips, the insurer made no reimbursement offer, the
lawsuit alleged.
Mark Chmielowiec, a high school teacher, had planned a school trip
for 16 students to Italy and Greece, originally set to begin on
March 11, 2020. But the trip was cancelled by the Toronto Catholic
District School Board due to the pandemic. Explorica Canada, which
had organized the trip, submitted a trip cancellation claim to
Chmielowiecs' insurer, Old Republic, but the insurer suggested that
Explorica failed to provide sufficient documentation. Explorica
retorted, claiming that it had submitted all requisite information
to the insurer.
"These companies are playing the blame game, at the expense of
countless families who have been waiting months for the
reimbursement that they are entitled to under their insurance
policies with Old Republic," said Samfiru Tumarkin insurance lawyer
and co-founding partner Sivan Tumarkin.
"Rather than immediately honouring their trip cancellation policy,
Old Republic has chosen instead to disregard the rights of parents
and students who are owed compensation through their legitimate
travel insurance claims," the lawyer added.
In a release, Tumarkin also called for other families who booked
school trips that were cancelled due to COVID-19, and were not
covered for trip cancellation insurance, to reach out to his law
firm.
The lawsuit comes days right after Samfiru Tumarkin filed another
class action lawsuit against Arch Insurance Canada over similar
trip cancellation insurance woes; that lawsuit is seeking $10
million in claims. [GN]
PIZZA PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Hansen-Schmeer, On behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Pizza Properties of North Carolina, Inc.; Pizza
Properties, Inc.; Robert Taylor; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe
1-10, Case No. 7:20-cv-00211-M (E.D.N.C., Nov. 10, 2020) seeks
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on the
Defendants' willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act (NCWHA).
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the FLSA and NCWHA by failing to adequately reimburse
delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby
failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wages
for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have
worked at the Defendants' Domino's stores.
The Defendants operate multiple Domino's Pizza locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary-Ann Leon, Esq.
THE LEON LAW FIRM, P.C.
704 Cromwell Dr., Ste. E
Greenville, NC 27858
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
www.billerkimble.com
PLAID: Faces TD Bank Lawsuit Amid Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
PYMNTS relates that Plaid is denying that it has used TD Bank's
logo to dupe customers into sending information it could monetize,
a report from The Globe and Mail says.
Plaid said it's also disappointed that TD Bank has filed a lawsuit
against it in the case, saying Plaid's role in transactions is
"made clear" to customers.
Plaid's software includes helping popular apps like Venmo,
Coinbase, Square and Stripe access bank and credit card info, and
the company says they "have been working with TD for quite some
time, and are disappointed that they resorted to litigation and
false allegations."
"Plaid is publicly known for never selling or renting consumers'
personal information," the company said, according to The Globe and
Mail.
Plaid faced a civil suit on Oct. 14 in a New Jersey court that
accused the company of making a user interface for financial
services applications that infringed on TD Bank's logo, trademark
and green color scheme.
In court, TD Bank said Plaid's actions "tricked" customers into
thinking they were entering personal information into the bank's
platform. Plaid, the allegations went, had worked to monetize the
data. U.S. subsidiary president Greg Braca, according to The Globe
and Mail, said in a statement that Plaid's "intentional,
unauthorized use of TD's name and branding is deceptive."
Plaid has seen a number of class action lawsuits accusing it of
selling information obtained from logins from millions of
customers, without the practice being disclosed. One of them,
PYMNTS reports, said the California-based company has been engaging
in such practices for years and has affected upwards of 200 million
individual accounts.
While the company's modus operandi states that it intends to power
digital finance and FinTech issues from its own digital network,
criticisms have come in over the years that the company has made a
habit of taking the information for itself and selling or misusing
it without that information being disclosed. [GN]
PORSCHE CARS: Faces Class Action Over Emissions Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Porsche class action lawsuit alleges 2008-2016 Porsche 911 and
2008-2016 Porsche Panamera cars are equipped with illegal emissions
defeat devices to turn off emissions controls.
According to the Porsche class action lawsuit, the "scheme"
involves the switching of exhaust filters depending on the internal
engine modes.
Additionally, Porsche allegedly has admitted it manipulated
emissions hardware and software that affects the exhaust systems
and engine components used in certification testing.
The Porsche lawsuit alleges the emissions tampering occurred after
the engines were type-approved by German's Federal Motor Transport
Authority (KBA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
German officials announced they were conducting an investigation
into the emissions systems of gasoline-powered cars sold before
2017. German regulators said Porsche contacted them about possible
problems with engines developed between 2008 and 2013.
Porsche 911 owner and California plaintiff Ashish Chadha purchased
a used 2012 Porsche 911 Carrerra for $65,800 when the car had
36,539 miles on it. The plaintiff says he flew to a Georgia
dealership, paid cash for the car, then had the car shipped to and
registered in his home state of California.
But Chadha claims the 911 was equipped with an emissions defeat
device to bypass the emissions controls and fool consumers and
regulators. The plaintiff says the car doesn't deliver the
advertised emissions and fuel economy, and it has caused him to
lose money and caused the vehicle to lose its value.
The plaintiff claims part of the reason he purchased the sports car
was because of the emissions and fuel economy advertised by
Porsche, but the advertisements didn't mention the car was equipped
with a device to defeat the emissions controls.
"Had Volkswagen and Porsche disclosed this design, and the fact
that Mr. Chadha vehicle emitted unlawfully high levels of
pollutants, Mr. Chadha would not have purchased the vehicle, or
would have paid less for it." - Porsche class action lawsuit
Chadha says he measured his own vehicle's fuel efficiency and
claims the Porsche consistently gets about five miles per gallon
less than promised and never exceeds 20 miles per gallon.
In March 2020, Mr. Chadha noticed his vehicle's P0456 diagnostic
trouble code started to illuminate which indicated a "minor leak."
He says he reset the code, added a fuel additive and replaced his
gas cap because this was recommended on a Porsche forum.
But the code reappeared in September 2020, so he took his car to
the Porsche dealership and was told there was a recall on the valve
that enters his car because the valve could get clogged. The
plaintiff says he was told it was a common problem and the valve
sometimes needed to be replaced several times.
He says he was also told when the code is on, his Porsche 911
generates poorer emissions performance which may be caused by an
EVAP leak, causing his car to burn fuel at a lower rate.
The other plaintiff is California 2013 Porsche 911 CS owner Milton
Lee, who purchased the car used for $74,000 when the vehicle had
about 8,764 miles on the odometer.
The plaintiff says his car was equipped with an emissions defeat
device which prevents the car from receiving the fuel economy, high
performance and emissions advertised.
Lee says he paid too much for the car due to unfair, unlawful and
deceptive conduct by Porsche.
"Mr. Lee selected and ultimately purchased his vehicle, in part,
because of the emissions, fuel economy, and performance promised,
as represented through advertisements and representations made by
Volkswagen and Porsche." - Emissions lawsuit
The Porsche class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division:
Chadha, et al., v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., et al.
The plantiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Seeger Weiss LLP, and Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody &
Agnello, P.C. [GN]
PRECIGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 4 Motion Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a
Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON). 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.
Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN; XON)
Class Period: May 10, 2017 to September 25, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 4, 2020
On September 25, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") issued a cease and desist order against Precigen. The cease
and desist order involved "inaccurate reports concerning the
company's purported success converting relatively inexpensive
natural gas into more expensive industrial chemicals using a
proprietary methane bioconversion (‘MBC') program." The order
noted that the Company 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." The cease-and-desist order further stated that although the
Company "pitched the MBC program privately to numerous potential
business partners over the course of 2017 and 2018" and "[a] number
of these potential partners performed due diligence on the MBC
program including reviewing lab results and plans for
commercialization. [The Company] has not yet found a partner for
the MBC program."
The complaint, filed on October 5, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period 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.
For more information on the Precigen class action go to:
https://bespc.com/PGEN
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
QUEST: Landlords Threatening to Pursue Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Myriam Robin, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that
franchising is a tricky business, and few have done it well for
long without running into some sort of trouble. Still, for the
sector's reputation if nothing else, it's probably worth spacing
out the accolades from the implosions.
No such foresight appears to be present at the Franchise Council of
Australia, which welcomed Quest co-founder Paul Constantinou as the
38th inductee to its Hall of Fame, citing his contributions to "the
broader story of a successful franchise sector".
That same week, a company jointly controlled by Constantinou and
Quest co-founder Rohan Davis was asking landlords to surrender
their long-term lease agreements, saying it didn't have the funds
to make any further rent payments.
Quest has since 2017 mostly been owned by Singaporean accommodation
group Ascott Limited. But Constantinou remains the group's
chairman, while he and Davis remain one of its largest franchisors
through their company CEM Group, which operates hotels where rooms
are owned by individual investors who take a fixed rent out of the
hotel's profits.
This year amid a once-in-a-century pandemic, said profits have
dried up. So CEM Group intends to shutter hotels across four
states.
Its landlords - small investors, many of whom have planned their
retirements around the Quest income stream - are threatening to
pursue a class action. Constantinou has defended the group's
actions, saying it's taking a loss while landlords always have the
option of moving into, renting or selling the room they bought.
Still, the whole thing is a right mess.
In an interview published by trade rag Franchise Business
Executive, Constantinou is quoted citing the "strong relationships"
integral to his success.
"It's important to convey to franchisees that we are just as
committed to the end game as they are," he said. You don't say.
[GN]
REATA PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Alerts of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Oct. 21 disclosed that a securities class action has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Reata Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Reata" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: RETA) between
October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
If you purchased Reata securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Reata Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) the MOXIe Part 2 study results were insufficient to
support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the
treatment of FA in the U.S. without additional evidence; (ii) as a
result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not accept marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA in the U.S. based
on the MOXIe Part 2 study results; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On August 10, 2020, during pre-market hours, Reata issued a press
release announcing its second quarter 2020 financial results,
wherein it disclosed that the FDA is "not convinced that the MOXIe
part 2 results" of the Company's study assessing omaveleoxolone for
the treatment of FA "will support a single study approval without
additional evidence that lends persuasiveness to the results," and
that, "in preliminary comments for [a] meeting, the FDA stated that
[Defendants] will need to conduct a second pivotal trial that
confirms the mFARS results of the MOXIe part 2 study with a similar
magnitude of effect."
On this news, Reata's stock price fell $51.79 per share, or 33.16%
to close at $104.41 per share on August 10, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 14, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Reata securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/reatapharmaceuticalsinc-reta-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-326/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
REATA PHARMA: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Oct. 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ:RETA) for violations of Sec.10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
15, 2019 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 14, 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. Reata failed to produce MOXIe Part 2
study results sufficient to support marketing approval for
omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA from the FDA without
additional evidence. It was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA based on the MOXIe
Part 2 study alone. 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 Reata,
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.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]
REGIS CORP: Awaits Court's Approval of Class Action Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is
awaiting the court's approval of the class action settlements in
the two wage-and-hour lawsuits in California. The Company is a
defendant in the California suits.
The first suit, a class action in US District Court, alleges
various violations of the California Labor Code, including, but not
limited to failure to pay wages, failure to permit rest breaks,
failure to pay all wages due on termination of employment, waiting
time penalties, failure to provide accurate wage statements and
violation of the business and professions code.
This case has been preliminarily settled, pending approval of the
court and class, for $2.1 million.
The second, a class action filed in California Superior Court,
alleges various violations of the California Labor Code as well as
PAGA penalties.
Barring successful objection from plaintiffs' attorneys to the
first class action, the second case will be subsumed into the first
case’s settlement.
As of June 30, 2020 and September 30, 2020, $2.1 million was
included within accrued expenses on the unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet related to these class action lawsuits.
In addition, our existing point of sale system supplier has
challenged the development of certain parts of the company's
technology systems in litigation brought in the Northern District
of California, case No. 20-cv-02181-MMC.
Regis said, "We have vigorously denied the allegations made by this
third-party supplier and have asserted certain counterclaims
against the third party. However, the dispute regarding our
ownership and involvement of certain key personnel may be costly
and distracting, and the outcome is currently uncertain. The
Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with these matters because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters."
Regis Corporation is an American operator of hair salons, and the
largest such chain in the world, with over 10,000 salons. It has
its headquarters in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 7 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Royal Caribbean Group (NYSE:
RCL). 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.
Royal Caribbean Group (NYSE: RCL)
Class Period: February 4, 2020 to March 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 7, 2020
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.
For more information on the Royal Caribbean class action go to:
https://bespc.com/RCL
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
SAMUEL & STEIN: Gonzales Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELDA GONZALES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SAMUEL & STEIN d/b/a THE LAW OFFICE OF SAMUEL & STEIN,
MICHAEL SAMUEL, DAVID STEIN, and DAVID NIEPORENT, Defendants, Case
No. 1:20-cv-09350 (S.D.N.Y., November 8, 2020) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
various willful, malicious, and unlawful employment policies,
patterns, and/or practices in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from on or about May
21, 2016 through the present to take new clients' initial
statements, collect new clients' documents and other duties.
The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked more than 40 hours
from Mondays thru Sundays throughout her employment with the
Defendants, and was not given any fixed breaks during her working
day. However, the Defendants did not properly compensate her for
all the hours he worked and for the hours he worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Instead, the Defendants paid him a flat salary for
all the hours she worked, including those in excess of 40 hours per
week.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not receive any
payment for the period of July 10, 2020 through July 24, 2020 until
September 24, 2020, for the period of August 8, 2020 through August
21, 2020 until October 15, 2020. When she complained about her
withheld pay, she was only paid for the periods between July 10,
2020 through 24, 2020 and August 21, 2020.
Furthermore, the Defendants knowingly, willfully, and maliciously
refused to pay the Plaintiff her lawfully earned overtime at one
and one-half times her regular rate of pay, and failed to provide
her with wage statements.
Samuel & Stein operates a law firm. Michael Samuel is a part owner
and the Chief Executive Officer of the firm. David Stein is a part
owner and an active litigator on behalf of and manager of the firm.
David Nieporent is an associate attorney at the firm who gave the
Plaintiff tasks to do, and critiqued her performance of those
tasks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Troy, Esq.
Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Tel: (718) 762-1324
E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com
SIRIUS XM: Faces Mueller TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MUELLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09339 (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2020) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received numerous
robocalls on his cellular telephone number between July and August
2020 from the Defendant attempting to promote its satellite radio
services. The Defendants allegedly used automatic telephone dialing
system (ATDS) and failed to obtain the Plaintiff's prior express
written consent to be contacted using an ATDS to his cellular
telephone number that has been listed on the National Do Not Call
Registry since March 21, 2017.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful calls, the Plaintiff has
suffered actual harm and cognizable legal injury, such as
aggravation, nuisance, invasion of privacy, consumption of battery
life, and others. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
statutory damages.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. is an audio entertainment company that
provides satellite and internet radio subscription service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
mgirardi@bursor.com
SPORTS MACHINE: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTS MACHINE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09325-GHW (S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2020) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by him and other blind or
visually-impaired people which violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer.
When the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's Website,
www.bikesourceonline.com, on multiple occasions to make a purchase,
she was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
individual. The Defendant's Website allegedly lacks of a variety of
features and accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff
from being able to determine what specific products were offered
for sale.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination because it failed to provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access
to its Website by failing to comply with the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.1.
Sports Machine, Inc. is a bike company that owns and operates
www.bikesourceonline.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
STORMWIND LLC: Moore Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEORGE MOORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STORMWIND, LLC d/b/a STORMWIND STUDIOS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06633 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2020)
arises from the Defendant's alleged improper policies and
procedures that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
To promote its certification and educational services, the
Defendant allegedly engaged in a cold-calling telemarketing
campaign by placing calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions
of potential customers en masse without obtaining their "prior
express written consent" to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS).
The Plaintiff contends that he received numerous automated
telemarketing calls from the Defendant beginning on July 13, 2020
on his cellular telephone number (630) 699-XXXX that was registered
on the National Do Not Call Registry for years. Although the
Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he was not interested in its
services, the Defendant continued to place calls on the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone and even deceptively informed the Plaintiff that
it purchased his telephone number from ZoomInfo. However, ZoomInfo
confirmed that they do not sell any lists to third parties that
represent permission to contact individuals on the National Do Not
Call Registry.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals have been harmed by the Defendant's
unsolicited telemarketing calls because their privacy has been
violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls
that constitute nuisance.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant
from placing telemarketing calls to telephone numbers, and treble
damages for himself and other similarly situated.
Stormwind, LLC d/b/a Stormwind Studios offers online learning
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Oct. 22 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Turquoise Hill
Resources 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.
Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (NYSE:TRQ)
TRQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 17, 2018 -
July 31, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10372&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
progress of underground development of Oyu Tolgoi was not
proceeding as planned; (ii) there were significant undisclosed
underground stability issues that called into question the design
of the mine, the projected cost and timing of production; (iii) the
company's publicly disclosed estimates of the cost, date of
completion and dates for production from the underground mine were
not achievable; (iv) the development capital required for the
underground development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost substantially more
than a billion dollars over what the company had represented; and
(v) Turquoise Hill would require additional financing and/or equity
to complete the project.
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]
UNILEVER US: Underpays Maintenance Technicians, Taylor Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNILEVER US, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02803 (W.D. Tenn., November 6, 2020) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing
to pay "off-the-clock" overtime compensation.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
general maintenance technician at its ice cream processing plant in
Covington, Tennessee.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant required him and other
similarly situated general maintenance technicians to work over 40
hours in a workweek to perform work-related activities which were
integral and indispensable part of their principal work activities
outside their scheduled shift hours. However, they were not
properly compensated by the Defendant for "off-the-clock"
work-related activities at the applicable FLSA overtime rates of
pay. Moreover, the Defendant failed to accurately record actual
hours worked by the Plaintiff and other general maintenance
technicians.
Unilever US, Inc. operates production and processing facilities.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
UNITED STATES: Mexico Mulls Class Action Over Forced Surgery
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Daily Best, reports that the Mexican
government has identified two migrant women who may have had
surgery performed on them -- without their consent -- while they
being held at a U.S. immigration center in Georgia. The Irwin
center in Georgia has already been the subject of numerous
disturbing allegations that migrant women had been forced or
coerced into gynecological surgery while being detained there. Now,
Mexico's foreign ministry says it has corroborated some of the
claims. The ministry said one Mexican woman was subject to
gynecological surgery without her approval and without receiving
post-operative care. Officials are also trying to verify the case
of a second woman who may have been subject to surgery without
receiving an explanation in Spanish of the procedure or her
diagnosis. The ministry also said it is considering taking forward
a class-action lawsuit by Mexican women who have been detained at
the facility. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Class Action Seeks Tuition, Fee Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Davis, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that hands-on learning; face-to-face interactions; study sessions
in the student union and workouts in the student gym are what
students said they signed up for -- and were required to pay for --
when they attended universities across the country last spring.
But, they argue, it's not what they got once the coronavirus drove
them off campus. And now they want their money back.
Class-action lawsuits calling for partial reimbursement of tuition
and fees are continuing to amass nationwide -- from Ivy League
institutions to goliath state university systems to small private
colleges -- with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at
stake.
Lawsuits challenging the entire University of California and
California State University systems - which encompass UC San Diego,
San Diego State University and Cal State San Marcos - are already
deep into litigation. If certified as class actions, the cases
could incorporate more than 750,000 students combined.
And the University of San Diego is facing similar claims in a case
filed on Oct. 1.
The lawsuits don't begrudge the universities for abruptly closing
campuses to prevent the spread of COVID-19. But they are asking
courts to weigh who should bear the financial burden of any
fallout. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Racial Discrimination Class Action Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Leistikow, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that eight
black former University of Iowa football players are seeking $20
million in compensation and for athletics director Gary Barta, head
coach Kirk Ferentz and assistant coach Brian Ferentz to be fired
over what they contend was intentional racial discrimination during
their Hawkeye careers.
The group, which includes two of the football program's most
prolific producers in Akrum Wadley and Kevonte Martin-Manley, made
the demands in a certified, 21-page letter sent to the UI. A copy
of the letter, dated Oct. 5, has been obtained by the Des Moines
Register.
The group is represented by Tulsa civil rights attorney Damario
Solomon-Simmons and has additional demands, including attorney's
fees; the creation of a permanent Black male senior administrator
position in Iowa athletics; mandatory anti-racist training for
athletics staff; the establishment of a board of advisers including
Black players and anti-racist professionals to oversee the football
program; and tuition waivers for any Black athlete who did not
graduate with a degree during Kirk Ferentz's 22-year tenure.
According to the letter, if the demands are not met to the former
athletes' satisfaction by Monday, Oct. 19, the athletes were
prepared to pursue a lawsuit "to ensure they are rightfully
compensated for their emotional, mental and bodily damages and that
Iowa is appropriately held accountable for its unlawful,
discriminatory conduct."
UI general counsel Carroll Reasoner formally replied to
Solomon-Simmons to say the football program had previously taken
steps to implement some of the demands but unequivocally added, "We
respectfully decline your monetary and personnel demands."
In other words: No $20 million settlement and no further firings.
To date, 21-year strength and conditioning coach Chris Doyle is the
only person to lose his job over racial-bias allegations that shook
the program in early June.
UI president Bruce Harreld, who on Oct. 1 (four days before this
letter was submitted) announced his plans for retirement, shared
this statement Sunday: "We appreciate some former athletes sharing
insights on their experience while at the University of Iowa. Many
of their concerns have been reviewed and addressed. And to be
clear, any student-athlete that has left the university and did not
obtain their degree is welcome to return, and we are here to
support them.
"There are several demands outlined in the letter, and we are proud
of the efforts made to date. We have a path forward that includes
ideas and recommendations from many current and former students
aimed at making the University of Iowa a more inclusive and better
place to learn, grow and compete as an athlete. However, the
university rejects the demands for money and personnel changes."
The brewing lawsuit is a continuation of the upheaval engulfing the
UI football program after approximately 60 former players in early
June shared examples of racial bias or mistreatment. Their
revelations led to a review of the program by outside law firm
Husch Blackwell.
The public timing of the former players' demands coincides with
Iowa football's first game week in 10 months. The Hawkeyes are
scheduled to open their coronavirus-delayed season Saturday at
Purdue.
The 21-page letter lays the groundwork for litigation and was led
by Solomon-Simmons, whose website touts his national TV presence
and role in high-profile cases, including efforts to obtain
reparations for the survivors of the 1921 Tulsa Race Riot. Des
Moines attorneys Alfredo Parrish and Brandon Brown are listed as
local counsel.
Accounts of negative Iowa football experiences under the direction
of Ferentz, college football's longest-tenured active coach, are
outlined on behalf of these eight former players:
Maurice Fleming, a defensive back at Iowa from 2012 through 2015
who transferred to West Virginia. Fleming states that Doyle would
use the n-word in his presence. Doyle said on June 7 that he has
never made racist comments, and current Iowa strength coach Raimond
Braithwaite (who is Black and has known Doyle since 2002) recently
said he had "never witnessed or heard (Doyle) make a racial
comment." On June 15, it was announced that Doyle would be paid
$1.1 million by the UI as part of a separation agreement.
Andre Harris, a wide receiver who never saw game action in his
three years at Iowa (2013-15) and transferred to Eastern Illinois.
He says coaches gave him harsher punishments than white teammates
for similar rules violations.
Marcel Joly, a running back who had two career carries in four
years at Iowa (2014-17). He says coaches once questioned whether a
BMW he drove to the football facility was legitimately purchased.
Martin-Manley, a five-year wide receiver (2010-14) whose 174 career
receptions remain a school record. Martin-Manley says complaints he
brought to Kirk Ferentz's attention about racist practices in the
program were ignored.
Aaron Mends, a five-year linebacker (2014-18) who transferred to
Illinois State after getting a sixth year of eligibility. Mends
echoed Martin-Manley's sentiments that complaints of systemic
racism and double standards were shared with Ferentz but brought no
significant change. Those claims are consistent with Ferentz's
admitted lack of action in 2019, when he failed to follow up as
promised with Black players after making surface-area program
changes, such as allowing rap music in the football facility.
Ferentz has admitted he "dropped the ball" then but has voiced more
commitment to change since June.
Jonathan Parker, a four-year running back (2013-16) who gained 714
all-purpose yards in 2014 but saw his role diminish and transferred
to Northern Illinois. Parker says he was subjected to "daily
ridicule and bullying," including from Brian Ferentz who Parker
says called him "a dumb-a -- Black player."
Reggie Spearman, a linebacker (2013-14) who had 49 tackles in 21
games as a Hawkeye before transferring to Illinois State. He says
he was unfairly punished, as compared to white teammates, over an
OWI charge in October 2014 that was later dismissed.
And Wadley (2013-17), who ranks fifth in program history with 2,872
rushing yards and scored 35 touchdowns, one shy of Tavian Banks'
school record. Wadley has made a wide range of public claims of
mistreatment, including that his meal-card privileges were revoked
-- a charge Kirk Ferentz categorically denied at a July 30 news
conference.
The accounts from the eight former players were consistent with
social-media posts or statements they each aired over the summer in
an attempt to draw attention to mistreatment and/or racial bias in
the Iowa football program. In the letter, Solomon-Simmons says
these players "intend to assert additional claims" should a lawsuit
occur.
The findings of the Husch Blackwell investigation, which was
conducted at the direction of Barta and Harreld, were made public
in a 28-page report released July 30. While the report concluded
that "the program's (stringent) rules perpetuated racial or
cultural biases," it found "positive changes since the inception of
the review" and overall favorable opinions of Kirk Ferentz as the
head football coach.
However, the 21-page demands letter outlines a different tone aimed
at proving that Kirk Ferentz "witnessed, sanctioned and possessed
intimate knowledge of widespread racial discrimination within the
program."
In saying his clients were the subject of discrimination,
Solomon-Simmons states the UI should be liable based on Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on
race, color or national origin in any program or activity, such as
a public university, that receives federal money.
In the UI's response to Solomon-Simmons:
Reasoner points out that Broderick Binns, a Black former Iowa
football player, has recently been elevated to the director of
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in athletics. While he is part of
the 13-member Hawkeye Leadership Team (assistant athletics
directors and above), Binns is not considered a member of the
senior administration as the plaintiffs are requesting.
She notes that Ferentz has created a diverse advisory committee "to
improve the football climate." That is being led by Black former
offensive lineman David Porter, although it's unclear how
frequently the committee meets or what impact it's having.
She says Iowa athletics provides annual education for coaches and
staff surrounding diversity issues. (However, Ferentz in a Sept. 17
news conference did not directly answer a question about whether
his staff had received additional racial-bias training in the wake
of the summer's allegations.)
She also invites the eight plaintiffs to assist the football
program in creating meaningful change and that Iowa would be happy
to help the efforts of former players who didn't obtain a college
degree.
Current Iowa players and coaches, during the team's media days
earlier this month, reported that there has been a more inclusive
environment within the program since the events of June and Doyle's
departure, while also acknowledging there's more work to be done.
"We haven't altered our core principles," Kirk Ferentz said. "But
we made adjustments that I think are probably a little more
palatable to a lot of our players."
Brian Ferentz, the head coach's 37-year-old son and current
offensive coordinator, was contrite for his past actions during an
Oct. 8 news conference.
In his first public statements since being accused by Wadley and a
handful of other former players of making racially charged
comments, he said, "My personal goal as a coach is to have a
positive impact on young people. And it's painful to learn that I
may have fallen short in that department. But I think it's a
tremendous opportunity to learn and grow."
Two days earlier, multiple current Black players came to Brian
Ferentz's defense, including running back Mekhi Sargent, who said:
"Coach Brian is a great man, a great coach. . . . He's going to
continue being very supportive of all the players here."
The potential legal action by these eight former athletes is likely
just the beginning of another chapter in the Hawkeye football
racial-bias saga.
In the letter, Solomon-Simmons wrote that if players' demands
aren't met, they also intend to file a discrimination complaint to
the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. He's also
requesting that the UI provide contact information for every Black
Iowa football player of the last 10 years and said if a lawsuit is
filed, the group would seek class-action status for "all similarly
situated African-American student-athletes."
Of the $20 million requested, $10 million is to compensate the
eight plaintiffs for "the loss of earning capacity, the loss of
professional opportunities, defamation, pain and suffering, mental
conditions, mental anguish, PTSD, humiliation and overall emotional
distress"; the other $10 million is to be allocated to other former
Hawkeyes who were affected by the alleged discrimination.
Solomon-Simmons did not respond to a request for an interview or
comment as of 7 p.m. Sunday.
Kirk Ferentz addressed the potential lawsuit with a statement later
Sunday evening, adding he would have no further comment on the
matter.
"I am disappointed to receive this type of demand letter. Due to
the threat of litigation, I am not able to address the specific
comments made by our former players," Ferentz said. "As you may
know, this past summer we made adjustments to create a more
inclusive and welcoming environment for all of our
student-athletes. These changes include both policies and rules, as
well as an expanded leadership council of current players and a new
advisory committee comprised of former players.
"I am deeply committed to helping everyone who joins the Hawkeye
football program reach their full potential on and off the field.
My focus is now on our current players who are preparing for our
first game this Saturday." [GN]
VAXART: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Lawsuits, Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that California biotech company Vaxart, which is
working on a Covid-19 vaccine, is under federal investigation and
is being sued by a number of investors for allegedly exaggerating
its involvement in the US government's Operation Warp Speed program
for developing Covid-19 vaccines and treatments.
Vaxart stated in an October 14 Securities and Exchange Commission
filing that it's being investigated by the SEC and federal
prosecutors, and that it was served with a grand jury subpoena in
July from the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.
In June, Vaxart issued a press release that said "Vaxart's Covid-19
Vaccine Selected for the US Government's Operation Warp Speed." The
news helped propel Vaxart's stock price to nearly $17, up from
approximately $3, and hedge fund Armistice Capital, which partly
controlled Vaxart, sold shares for a profit of more than $200
million, according to its SEC filings.
A few weeks before the announcement, Vaxart granted amendments to
the warrants agreements, which allowed Armistice to sell almost all
of their stock, which they did once the stock price skyrocketed.
In July, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told
the New York Times that it had not entered into a funding agreement
or negotiations with Vaxart. Armistice and HHS did not respond to
requests for comment.
Vaxart has not been chosen by Operation Warp Speed to receive
research funding, but instead had limited involvement, HHS told the
New York Times in July. Vaxart's vaccine, an oral tablet, was only
involved in preliminary studies on primates sponsored by Warp
Speed.
In a statement to CNN Business Saturday, the company said, "The
Vaxart non-human primate challenge study was organized and funded
by Operation Warp Speed, as stated in the June 26, 2020 company
press release. The statements made in that press release are
accurate and any allegation to the contrary is baseless."
In its October SEC filing, Vaxart wrote that it has provided
documents called for by the subpoena to demonstrate its role in
Operation Warp Speed. "The company has voluntarily provided
documents requested by the SEC and is cooperating with this
informal inquiry," it stated.
Vaxart and its board have been sued several times by shareholders
who accuse the company of allegedly inflating Vaxart's stock price
by misrepresenting its role in Operation Warp Speed. Vaxart
addressed those lawsuits in its filing, saying that it's seeking to
have two of the suits dismissed, while another class-action suit is
still proceeding.
On October 14, Vaxart announced encouraging results from its study
on hamsters that received oral dosages of its Covid-19 vaccine.
[GN]
VBI VACCINES: Dec. 3 Preliminary Hearing Set in Suit v. SciVac
--------------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the next
preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on December 3, 2020, in
the putative class action suit initiated against SciVac Ltd., a
company subsidiary in Israel.
On September 13, 2018, two actions were brought in the District
Court of the central district in Israel naming the company's
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.
In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege among other
things, defects in certain batches of Sci-B-Vac discovered in July
2015; that Sci-B-Vac was approved for use in children and infants
in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its safety; that
SciVac failed to provide accurate information about Sci-B-Vac to
consumers and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.
The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with
Sci-B-Vac in Israel from April 2011 and seeking damages in a total
amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in thousands) ($546,207).
The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that Sci-B-Vac was
marketed in Israel without sufficient evidence establishing its
safety; and that Sci-B-Vac was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body.
The claim seeks damages for past and future losses and expenses as
well as punitive damages.
SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.
The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action.
Preliminary hearings for the trial of the civil action began on
January 15, 2020, with a second preliminary hearing held on May 13,
2020 to discuss document disclosure.
The next preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on December 3,
2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
WATER GREMLIN: Homeowner Files Property Damage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Mayerle, writing for WCCO, reports that a homeowner in
White Bear Township is suing a manufacturing plant, alleging
property damage.
Water Gremlin has been at the center of controversy since early
2019, when it entered into a settlement with the state of Minnesota
after more than a decade of pollution came to light. Some living
near the plant say the company should compensate the community.
The manufacturing plant is surrounded by homes, one of which
belongs to Rob Sharot.
"It's a place of safety, it's shelter," Sharot said.
But he says the plant's actions has threatened his home value. It
released elevated and unsafe levels of a chemical known to cause
cancer and birth defects, called TCE, into the air for more than 15
years.
The state settled with the company in early 2019 for $7 million in
fines and corrective action. Months later, WCCO exposed workers
were unknowingly taking home lead, poisoning some kids.
"That's the primary concern right now, what is that going to do to
our property value, my neighbors, etc., that have been impacted,"
Sharot said.
Law firm Liddle and Dubin out of Detroit, Michigan has taken on the
class action case. Laura Sheets is one of the attorneys involved.
"It is one of the most egregious cases of pollution that I have
ever seen," Sheets said. "This is impacting these people's ability
to use and enjoy their homes. It's impacting their ability to sell
their house."
The case alleges 4,000 homes in the area of concern, outlined by
state health and pollution officials have suffered property damage
as a result of the excessive TCE release. The concern is two-fold:
lost home value and that buyers won't look in the area because of
the attention the issue has gotten. Sellers must disclose the
pollution to prospective purchasers.
"Basically, they need to be held accountable for their actions.
That's really what this comes down to," Sharot said.
In a statement, the plant told WCCO, "Water Gremlin believes this
case is without merit, and we will be presenting a rigorous defense
of this matter. Out of respect for the legal process, we will not
comment on details of the case at this time. In April 2019, the
Minnesota Department of Health reported no evidence of increased
illnesses associated with TCE in the area surrounding Water
Gremlin."
Earlier this year, Minnesota made history, becoming the first state
to ban TCE. The case has been assigned to the same judge currently
handling a state case involving lead migration and Water Gremlin.
[GN]
WHITEHORSE CORRECTIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Segregation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Hong, writing for Yukon News, reports that two former
Whitehorse Correctional Centre inmates have filed a class action
against the jail, corrections officials and Yukon government on
behalf of everyone who's been placed in two restrictive units over
the past six years.
Ray Hartling and Mark Lange, in a statement of claim filed to the
Yukon Supreme Court on Oct. 20, allege that people placed in the
jail's former secure living unit (SLU) or segregation unit have had
their Charter rights violated -- either the one protecting
Canadians' right to life, liberty and security, or guarding against
cruel and unusual punishment.
Both men have mental health conditions but were placed in the
units, where inmates are more isolated than in general population,
for extended periods during their time at the jail.
The action is seeking $10,000 for each person who's had to spend
time in either unit since Oct. 20, 2014, and proposes five
different classes of plaintiffs. The classes are divided up by
which unit they spent time in, when they were in the units and, in
the case of people in the SLU, if they had serious mental illness
or were incarcerated for at least 15 days.
Lawyer Vincent Larochelle, who's representing Hartling and Lange,
said his clients want to ensure that no one else "ever (has) to go
through what they went through here at the Whitehorse Correctional
Centre."
"Both Mr. Lange and Mr. Hartling have had extensive experience with
the criminal justice system and the Whitehorse Correctional Centre,
and I think they both feel, rightfully so, that they've been failed
in too many respects to count by the criminal justice system and in
particular by the prison here in Whitehorse," he said.
While he didn't have actual numbers, he estimated that 200 to 300
people may have been placed in either unit over the time the
lawsuit covers.
The Yukon government, attorney general of the Yukon, Whitehorse
Correctional Centre (WCC), the jail's assistant deputy
superintendent and superintendent and the Yukon government's
director of corrections are listed as defendants.
None of them have filed a statement of defence yet.
Department of Justice spokesperson Fiona Azizaj said in an email
Oct. 21 that the department had received a copy of the lawsuit "and
is reviewing it to determine the Government of Yukon's response."
"The Government of Yukon will be defending the action, and its
position on the merits of the claims will be set out in its
pleadings," she wrote.
Hartling and Lange both spent months in either the SLU or
segregation unit while they were incarcerated at the WCC, according
to the statement of claim.
The lawsuit argues that although they go by different names, the
units were essentially the same and kept inmates in restrictive
conditions where they were locked in their cells for up to 23 hours
a day, had limited, if any, contact with other people and less
opportunities to access programming or employment than other
inmates.
Hartling, in particular, spent more than 36 months at the jail
between March 2016 and July 2019, and "was kept in both SLU and
(segregation) too often to recall with complete accuracy," the
lawsuit says.
He was kept in his cell between 22 to 23 hours a day while in
segregation, the statement of claim alleges, and, in 2018,
experienced a psychological breakdown during which he covered his
cell with feces and was left inside for "an extended period of
time." He also tried to slit his wrists with a nail clipper while
in SLU.
The lawsuit alleges the jail knew Hartling suffered from anxiety
attacks, ADD and depression, and that while he was released from
the WCC in July 2019, "he has been left permanently scarred by his
stay."
Lange, meanwhile, was incarcerated at the WCC between June 2014 and
December 2015 and again between January and June 2019, spending
"significant amounts of time" in both the SLU and segregation.
The lawsuit alleges that the jail knew that Lange has ADHD, fetal
alcohol spectrum disorder, "significant brain injury repercussions"
and antisocial personality disorder.
"Prolonged periods of isolation of the Plaintiffs has led to a host
of negative consequences for their mental health," the statement of
claim says, adding that members of the class action with
"pre-existing psychiatric disorders rendered them especially
susceptible to the negative effects of isolation."
The lawsuit argues that incarcerating people in the SLU who have
pre-existing psychiatric conditions and incarceration in the
segregation unit in general, constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. It also argues that the absence of an adequate review
process for placements in the units, the "significant deprivation
of liberty" and the increased risk of suicide is a breach of the
right to life, liberty and security.
This isn't the first time the use of the SLU has come before the
courts.
Ron Veale, then the chief justice of the Yukon Supreme Court,
ordered that the SLU be disbanded in 2019 following a legal
challenge by former WCC correctional officer and inmate Darryl
Sheepway. Veale had found that the jail didn't have the legal
authority to create the unit and that the conditions under which
people were kept in the SLU were essentially segregation by another
name, but without any of the legislative safeguards. [GN]
WORLEY: Federal Court Justice Tosses Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Worley employees were worried about "a culture of fear" at the
engineering group in 2013 and losing their jobs if they told the
truth, instead of providing optimistic financial forecasts, a
Federal Court judgment has revealed after the company won a class
action lawsuit.
Federal Court Justice Jacqueline Gleeson on Oct. 22 dismissed a
class action against Worley that alleged the company misled
investors when it slashed profit forecasts in 2013.
Allens partner Belinda Thompson said the dismissal -- only the
second class action in Australia to receive a judgment after the
Myer class action earlier this year -- could encourage more
companies to defend class actions in court. The Myer action was
also dismissed.
"We have seen a greater preparedness for cases to run recently," Ms
Thompson. "In each case, they've ultimately been successfully
defended."
Reasonable explanation
ACA Lawyers, now owned by Shine Lawyers, filed a $50 million class
action in the NSW branch of the Federal Court against Worley in
2015. It alleged the company engaged in "misleading or deceptive
conduct" in 2013 because it did not provide a reasonable
explanation for why its three main reasons for a November profit
downgrade - a fall in professional services revenue, a cost-cutting
program and the decline of its Australian and Canadian businesses -
were "unexpected or unforseen developments".
Justice Gleeson found that while the basis for the downgrade was
"plainly open to question" and that Worley's 2013-14 budget may
have been "overly optimistic", she was not persuaded that the
company's previous earnings guidance, given in August, lacked
"reasonable grounds".
The judgment showed the court recognised the seriousness of the
allegations against Worley, and that it was unwilling to accept
them without "clear evidence", Ms Thompson said.
However, the judgment said Worley's budget-setting process in
2013-14 under former chief executive Andrew Wood was affected by "a
culture of optimism", and there were cases where some of the
company's offices "inflated their projections of blue sky revenue
in order to meet senior management expectations".
Former chief financial officer Simon Holt interviewed employees
after Worley cut its guidance in November 2013, and prepared a
memorandum for the company's audit and risk committee on
December 5.
Interview notes for the memorandum include the comments: "Multiple
passes at forecasts and re-forecasts trying to get to a more
palatable outcome"; "Culture of fear if they tell the truth with
consequence of staff cuts"; "People put in number which look right
rather than are right"; "Unrealistically high BlueSky number with
little proper risk assessment"; and "Lack of transparency, if it is
bad we have to know it is going bad!!!"
"BlueSky" was a term used to refer to projects that were not yet
known but that Worley was expected to work on and was given a
financial value in the budget.
The lawsuit alleged that Worley could not justify its blue sky
forecasts, citing the 2013 memorandum which stated the company had
underperformed its original budget by 10 per cent or more five
times in the past six years.
The memorandum said some of Worley's offices were making forecasts
on the "hope" work would materialise, rather than "any real
expectation that it will . . . our budget assumes that everything
will go right in a world where we know things will go wrong".
Worley's shares tumbled 26 per cent to $16 on November 20, 2013,
slashing more than $1 billion off its market value, after Mr Wood
cut the company's annual net profit guidance to a new range of $260
million to $300 million.
Investors were surprised by the warning, because the engineering
group had told shareholders at its annual results in August and at
its annual general meeting in early October to expect net profit of
at least $322 million.
Projects being deferred
An amended statement of claim, filed in mid-2018, alleged that
Worley's executives were aware by mid-August 2013 that the
company's 2013-14 group budget -- which was then forecasting annual
net profits of $352 million -- would be challenging to achieve, and
that oil companies were cutting back on capital spending.
It also alleged that Worley was aware that resources companies were
deferring projects and that results in Canada were not meeting
expectations.
Worley brought in a new chief financial officer, former Transurban
executive Tom Honan, in December 2015, replacing Mr Holt, who left
the company. Mr Wood retired in February and was replaced by Chris
Ashton.
ACA's case named investor Larry Crowley, a self-funded retiree and
former accountant who manages his own share portfolio, as the
plaintiff. Mr Crowley acquired 423 Worley shares on October 4,
2013, when they were trading at about $23.68, paying $10,047 for
them.
Mr Crowley sold his shares in May 2015 for $2756.
The judgment found that Mr Crowley had failed to demonstrate that
Worley contravened any of the statutory rules against misleading
and deceptive conduct.
Worley, which was set to hold its annual general meeting on Oct.
23, denied there was a proper basis for the claim and tried to stop
the action from proceeding but the Federal Court ordered the case
to continue in 2017.
Shine has not decided whether to appeal the judgment. [GN]
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Nov. 23 Bid Deadlin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Wrap Technologies Inc. You
can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or
you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WRTC)
Class Period: April 29, 2020 - September 23, 2020
Deadline: November 23, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/wrtc
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company had concealed the results of the
LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap
was ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and
(2) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 / info@bgandg.com [GN]
WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KS: Joyce Sues Over Civil Rights Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA JOYCE v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY / KANSAS
CITY, KANSAS, Case No. 2:20-cv-02568-HLT-JPO (D. Kan., Nov. 10,
2020) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all similarly situated employees, seeking monetary damages to
redress the deprivation of rights accorded to the Plaintiff under
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Plaintiff seeks equitable and injunctive relief to redress the
deprivation of rights accorded to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Plaintiff Angela Joyce is female, over the age of 40 years, and
citizen and resident of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The Plaintiff was
an employee of the Unified Government and worked in the Police
Department.
The Defendant Unified Government of Wyandotte County / Kansas City,
Kansas is the municipality and it operates the Kansas City, Kansas
Police Department as its law enforcement agency (Police
Department).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah A. Brown, Esq.
Daniel G. Curry, Esq.
BROWN & CURRY, LLC
1600 Genessee Street, Suite 956
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 756-5458
Facsimile: (816) 666-9596
E-mail: sarah@brownandcurry.com
dan@brownandcurry.com
YRC WORLDWIDE: Appeal in Lewis Purported Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal in the
purported class action suit captioned, Christina Lewis v. YRC
Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00001, is pending. The
complaint generally alleged that the defendants had violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making false and misleading statements relating to the Company's
freight billing practices.
In January 2019, the purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers.
The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between
March 10, 2014 and December 14, 2018.
The action included claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.
The co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 14, 2019,
and the defendants moved to dismiss it on July 15, 2019.
On March 27, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in its entirety and entered judgment closing the case.
The co-lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 27, 2020.
That appeal is pending.
YRC Worldwide Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of
transportation services primarily in North America. The company
operates in two segments, YRC Freight and Regional Transportation.
The company was formerly known as Yellow Roadway Corporation and
changed its name to YRC Worldwide Inc. in January 2006. YRC
Worldwide Inc. was founded in 1924 and is headquartered in Overland
Park, Kansas.
ZURICH AMERICAN: Lindenwood University Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lilah Burke, writing for INSIDE Higher Ed, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Zurich American Insurance
Company on behalf of Lindenwood University, a liberal arts college
in Missouri, and similarly situated institutions. The university,
which holds a property insurance policy from Zurich, argues in the
complaint that the company's denial of coverage and refusal to pay
claims related to COVID-19 losses is a breach of contract and
derogatory judgement. The university closed down its campus in
March, as most other institutions did, and has not been able to use
its insured property as it had previously and has suffered related
financial losses.
The company has maintained that COVID-19 cannot create loss or
damage to insured property. Lindenwood has countered that the risk
of COVID-19 on the property eliminates its habitability and
utility, constituting direct physical loss or damage. [GN]
[*] China Launches New Class Action Mechanism
---------------------------------------------
Baker McKenzie, in an article Lexology, reports that China has
launched a new class action mechanism to crack down on corporate
malfeasance in the securities market. Under the new mechanism, the
China Securities Investor Services Centre, a Chinese
government-affiliated body, can sue on behalf of no fewer than 50
investors in a company, on an opt-in basis. [GN]
[*] Two Opt-In Data Privacy Class Actions Pending in France
-----------------------------------------------------------
David McIlwaine, Esq. -- david.mcilwaine@pinsentmasons.com -- of
Pinsent Masons, reports that organisations should prepare for an
increase in claims raised by data subjects following cybersecurity
incidents.
The combination of heightened cyber risk, potential legislative
reform and growing interest in this area from claimant law firms
and litigation funders suggests that the threat of data subject
claims is a growing corporate risk -- both financially and
reputationally.
This is further supported by the experiences of the cyber team at
international professional services firm Pinsent Masons. The team's
experience from working on a significant number of breach response
matters is that, in cases where data subjects are notified about a
data security breach, 20% have resulted in actual or threatened
claims from data subjects.
Our findings also show that the litigation risk significantly
heightens in correlation with the severity of the security breach.
Controllers can be almost certain of litigation where there has
been regulatory enforcement in respect of the incident. That said,
the cyber team has observed examples of data subject claims being
made against organisations in the aftermath of data security
breaches where regulators have not taken any action in relation to
those breaches.
The varying and evolving legal position on group claims
Recent developments have made it easier for data subjects to raise
claims as part of a group of individuals similarly impacted by an
incident such as a data security breach.
In Europe the law on group claims differs across jurisdictions, but
a harmonised model for collective consumer redress is to be
introduced at a EU level under a new group claims directive.
Actions could be raised on both an 'opt-in' and an 'opt-out' basis
under the proposals, subject to protections against vexatious
claims being pursued. In Scotland, new legislation has recently
come into force which introduces a procedure for group proceedings
on an opt-in basis initially, but with provision for cases to be
brought on an opt-out basis too.
In the field of data privacy claims specifically, the position is
inconsistent across jurisdictions. We are aware of two opt-in class
action cases pending before the courts in France, and a pending
case involving Facebook currently before the German Federal Court
of Justice. In Ireland, a digital rights advocacy body brought the
first multi-party action in Ireland against the Irish government in
2019, while in Spain there are currently no collective redress
mechanisms available.
Outside Europe, our team in Hong Kong note a renewed interest in
collective redress options following the Cathay Pacific data
breach. Legislation in Hong Kong currently allows for
representative actions, but discussion has been stirred up on the
adoption of a class action regime.
An evolving picture in the UK
Provision is contained in the UK's Data Protection Act 2018 for
claims to be raised on behalf of groups of individuals affected by
breaches of the legislation. Currently, such claims can only be
raised by non-profit organisations and involve only individuals who
have given their permission to be represented. However, the
government is in the process of reviewing representative action
provisions and recently consulted on whether to allow non-profits
to bring court claims on behalf of individuals without their
consent.
In addition, the UK Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal in April
2021 in the Lloyd v Google LLC case, a novel attempt to bring a
claim on behalf of several million data subjects under the
representative action procedure in rule 19.6 of the Civil Procedure
Rules.
Managing claims
If opt-out class actions are ultimately permitted in the data
breach space, such cases will be particularly attractive to third
party litigation funders. Opt-out claims could involve tens or
hundreds of thousands or even millions of people in a group and
potentially concern just the question of the level of damages
payable if judges are persuaded by earlier regulatory
determinations of a breach. The potential overall damages award
could be high, even if each individual claimant is ultimately
awarded a relatively modest damages sum. It is this overall award
which represents an area of significant risk to organisations.
On a practical level, organisations need to be prepared to respond
to the tactics favoured by claimant firms and claims management
companies following a data security breach. Such tactics can create
operational headaches for the recipient organisation, with multiple
deadlines running concurrently, and which can be designed to
pressure organisations into early settlement of cases. Our annual
report explores the cyber team's experience of responding to some
of these tactics.
The potential for substantial pay-out exposure should concentrate
boards' minds on the importance of robust procedures and
governance, including plans for handling potential large scale
claims. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***