/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 252 Headlines ABIOMED INC: Local 705 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Suit Ongoing ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending AIKEN ELECTRIC: Customers Set to Get Settlement Payouts ALBANY COUNTY, NY: Dolberry Files Suit in N.D. New York ALCOA USA: Simpkins Sues Over Healthcare Coverage Halt for Retirees ALIERA COMPANIES: Albina Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway ALTERYX INC: Faces Three Putative Class Suits in California AMAG PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Zamfirova Suit Pending AMAZON.COM INC: Wiretaps Drivers' Facebook Groups, Jackson Says AMBER AVALON: Collado Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Line Cooks AMCOR PLC: Consolidated Dixon-Stein Suit Underway AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Nix Cambridge Retirement System's Suit Denied AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Eaton Putative Class Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Dismissal of Pension Fund Suit Under Appeal AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Ongoing AMPEX BRANDS: Terrell Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses ANGI HOMESERVICES: Class Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Ongoing ANTHEM: To Pay $39.5 Million Over 2014 Data Breach APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending APOLLO GLOBAL: Securities Suit Over PlayAGS Disclosures Underway AQUI EN BELLA: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Action Underway ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Appeal on Huang Suit Dismissal Pending ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in Glumetza(R) Suit OK'd ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending AUBURN COMMUNITY: Underpays Hospital Staff, Pizzoleo Suit Alleges AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Victims Want Ministers to Face Inquiry AUSTRALIA: Settles Robodebt Victims' Class Action for $1.2 Billion AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Made in Hackel Securities Suit AVIS BUDGET: Alexander Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Agents BARINGS BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Pending BBVA USA: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Eisenberg Suit Says BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County Underway BLUE DIAMOND: Cosgrove Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Wins Dismissal of 3rd Amended Ignacuinos Suit BOEING CO: Burke Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to Seventh Circuit BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons Sues Over 7.89% Drop in Share Price BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Patti TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CALIFORNIA: Harvest Rock Files Application for Writ of Injunction CANADA: Sixties Scoop Survivors Launches Healing Foundation CARENET INFOMEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gabel Suit Claims CARPENTER CO: Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California CHICAGO TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in Ovation Finance Suit CHINA XD: Schmitt Claims Stockholders' Breach of Fiduciary Duties CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing CN MOTOR: Faces Shak Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. State Court COMPASS RECOVERY: Woodall Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK CONDUENT INC: ERS Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority Suit Ongoing CONTRACT TRANSPORT: Burlaka Files Certiorari Petition in FLSA Suit COVIA HOLDINGS: Faces Plagens Suit Over Decline of Share Price CRODA INC: Faces Class Action Over Altas Point Plant Emission CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend LTC Business Unit-Related Suits CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation Ongoing CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation Underway CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Litigation Junked CVS HEALTH: Radcliffe and Flaim Class Suits Underway DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Langlois Lawyers Discuss Ruling in Asselin DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Lindenbaum Suit Over Telemarketing Calls DIRECTV: 9th Cir. Judge Bennett Tries to Reverse Ruling in Revitch DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing DOMINION ENERGY: Issues $322MM Shares to Satisfy Obligation DOMINION ENERGY: RICO-Linked Class Suit Dismissed DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Appeal on Securities Class Suit Pending DOMINO'S PIZZA: Flores Employment Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada DXC TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Class Action's Dismissal Pending DXC TECHNOLOGY: California Securities Class Suits Underway EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix New York Class Suit EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Andrews & Springer Probes for Potential Breach EL PASO CTY., CO: Weikert Balks at Lack of COVID-19 Safety Measures ELANCO ANIMAL: Hunter Securities Class Action Ongoing ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Corporation Class Suit Underway ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Class Suit Related to TFI Operations ERNST & YOUNG: Wirecard Investors File Suit Over Negligence ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory EVERQUOTE INC: Runyon TCPA Putative Class Suit Dismissed EVERQUOTE INC: Scavo TCPA Putative Class Suit Tossed EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Putative Class Suit FACEBOOK INC: Sherman Sues Over Social Media Market Monopoly FALAFEL INC: Faces Sandoval Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court FAMOUS DAVE'S: Court Certifies Classes in Graham Labor Suit FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Walters Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed FINE CRAFTSMAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Suit Alleges FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Facing Putative Class Suit in California FORD MOTOR: F-150 Transmission Class Action Tossed FREIGHTCENTER INC: Swarthout Sue Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Overtime FULTON FINANCIAL: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kress Suit FUN & FIT: Hickmon Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Seal Expert Declaration in Hilsley Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Adams Appeals Judgment in RICO Suit to 9th Cir. GENERAL MOTORS: Altobelli Sues Over Defective Lithium-Ion Batteries GENERAL MOTORS: Rankin Sues Over Defective Automobile Batteries GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program on Standby GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Hartel Suit GLOBALROSE.COM LLC: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York GOGO INC: Motion to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Pending GREENWAY HEALTH: Charges Customers for EHR Release, Valley Says HARRIS WATER: Loses FLSA Class Decertification Bid in Pino Suit HC2 HOLDINGS: Agents Distributes Settlement Funds in DBMG Suit HC2 HOLDINGS: Fair Value Investments Putative Class Suit Underway HC2 HOLDINGS: Tera Class Action Concluded HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Sorrano Suit HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend New York Class Actions HOSOPO CORP: Settlement Proposed in TCPA Class Action IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid to Dismiss Newman Class Suit Pending INOVIO PHARMA: McDermid Class Action Ongoing INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Status Due Feb. 2021 INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Chauhan Suit INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir. INTERFACE INC: Frank Cruz Alerts of Jan. 21 Plaintiff Bid Deadline INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Paid $2.9MM to Settle Sawyer Class Suit J2 GLOBAL: Affiliates Moved to Decertify Class in DN Suit J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Putative Securities Class Suit Underway JONES LANG: Class Cert. Bid in WDES Suit Denied Without Prejudice JP MORGAN: Banks Can Pay 0% Interest on Escrow Acct, 9th Cir. Says K12 INC: Faces Baig Suit Over Drop in Share Price KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Valdes Sues Over 28.34% Decline in Share Price LOGMEIN INC: Shareholder Class Action Against Firm Dismissed MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending MARS IT CORP: Mendez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California MASSACHUSETTS: Thousands Back Lawsuit Against Flu Vaccine Mandate MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Class Suit Underway MDL 2311: Court Awards Counsel Fees & Incentives in Antitrust Suit MDL 2389: $35MM Facebook IPO Securities Suit Deal Approval Upheld METLIFE INC: Bid to Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement Pending METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York MICHAELS ORGANIZATION: AMC Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Lenz Suit MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Ongoing in Freedman Suit MYLAN NV: April 2021 Summary Judgment Trial in EpiPen(R) Suit MYLAN NV: Bid to Nix EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending MYLAN NV: Class Suit Over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey MYLAN NV: EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit in Kansas Underway MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed NANTHEALTH INC: Deora Settlement Granted Final Approval NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in Class Suit Set for Feb. 4 NATURMED INC: Henson Bid for Add'l Time to Serve Defendants Tossed NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Ongoing NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Suits in California NESTLE USA: Slack-fill Class Suit Now Pending in Cal. Super. Ct. NEW VISION PIZZA: Darcy Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Court Approves Avila Case Settlement NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Trial in California Class Suit Set for June 14 NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Amended Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements NPAS SOLUTIONS: 11th Cir Eliminates Incentive Awards in TCPA Suit OHIO: Attys. Asks Supreme Court to Hear Ogle Class Action PARKER UNIVERSITY: Klein Suit Pending in N.D. Calif. PEABODY ENERGY: OKC Firefighters Pension & Retirement Suit Ongoing PERRIGO: Pension Funds Get Class Action Status Over Tax Liability PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Suit vs. Bank Unit Voluntarily Dismissed PLUM BOROUGH: Associated Builders Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Justice Dept. Prevails in Detainees' Class Action PLYMOUTH CTY, MA: Renewed Request for Discovery in Baez Denied POLAR CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Amended McNulty Class Suit POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action PRECIGEN INC: Stock Purchasers Putative Class Suits Underway PROGENITY INC: Bid to Consolidate Soe and Brickman Suit Pending PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending PROSHARES TRUST II: Named as Defendant in Di Scala Suit REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway RECRO PHARMA: Seeks to Nix Amended Complaint Over IV Meloxicam RESURGENT CAPITAL: Loses Schwebel Suit Dismissal Bid Under FDCPA RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit over Privacy Violations Underway RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Suit on Hold Pending Settlement Approval RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Complaint Pending SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES: Paner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SHEPHERD'S CARE: Faces $8.1MM Suit on Handling of Covid Outbreak SOCIAL SECURITY: SSA to Release Files on Doan & Nguyen in Thai Suit STERLING JEWELERS: Sup. Court Declines to Hear Class-Action Appeal SUGAR MEMORIES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SWATCH GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says TD ASSET: Loses Bid to Block Class Action Certification TD ASSET: Suit for Commissions to Discount Brokers Certified THINK FINANCE: Two Venture Capitalists Pay $50 Million TIVITY HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Strougo Suit TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit Currently Set for May 18 TL CANNON: Dees Seeks to Recover Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages TOYOTA MOTOR: Alaniz Consumer Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Injunction Ruling in Roman UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeal in Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending US ECOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Sullivan PAGA Claims VERTEX GLOBAL: Franklin Files Suit in S.D. New York VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss PCRA Class Suit Pending WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Trim Files Suit in S.D. California WALMART INC: Powell Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California WILLIAMS & FUDGE: $68,000 Yadgarova Suit Settlement Gets Final OK [*] Class Action Law Changes May Upend Antitrust Litigation [*] Exposure to Stock Drop Class Actions Amounts to $13BB in 3Q ********* ABIOMED INC: Local 705 Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abiomed, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit headed by Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund. On or about August 6, 2019, the Company received a securities class action complaint filed on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities between January 31, 2019 through July 31, 2019. On October 7, 2019, a similar purported class action complaint was filed by a different shareholder on behalf of himself and persons or entities that purchased or acquired the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. Also, on October 7, 2019, four shareholders filed applications to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel for the class. Two of those shareholders also filed motions to consolidate the two cases and two of the shareholders have withdrawn their applications to be lead plaintiff. The complaints allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly misleading disclosures made by the Company regarding its financial condition and results of operations. The Company has reviewed and not yet responded to the complaints. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and plans to defend itself vigorously. On June 28, 2020, the Court issued an order consolidating the two cases and appointed Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff and the Labaton Sucharow firm as lead counsel. On September 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which they proposed a new class period of May 3, 2018 to July 31, 2019. As prescribed by a scheduling order, the Company may file a motion to dismiss on or before November 16, 2020. The Company intends to do so but does not expect a decision on that motion until at least the second quarter of calendar year 2021. Abiomed, Inc. is a provider of mechanical circulatory support devices and offers a continuum of care in heart recovery to heart failure patients. The Company develops, manufactures and markets proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and/or performing the pumping function of the heart. The Company's products are used in the cardiac catheterization lab, or cath lab, by interventional cardiologists and in the heart surgery suite by heart surgeons for patients who are in need of hemodynamic support prophylactically or emergently before, during or after angioplasty or heart surgery procedures. The company is based on Danvers, Massachusetts. ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADTRAN, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619, is pending. On October 17, 2019, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, two of its current executive officers and one of its former executive officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of purported purchasers of ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019 and October 9, 2019. The lawsuit claims that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about, the Company's business, operations and prospects, specifically relating to the Company's internal control over financial reporting, excess and obsolete inventory reserves, financial results and demand from certain customers. The lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on January 7, 2020, and co-lead plaintiffs have been appointed to represent the putative class. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2020. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 17, 2020. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to the defendants' motion to dismiss on July 17, 2020. The defendants filed a reply to the plaintiffs' brief on August 17, 2020. The motion to dismiss remains under review by the Court. ADTRAN said, "We deny the allegations in the complaint, as amended, and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of or estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ADTRAN, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services a variety of high-speed digital transmission products. The Company's products are used by telephone companies and corporate end-users to implement advanced digital data services over existing telephone networks. ADTRAN also offers a line of multiplexers which provides modular flexibility. The company is based in Huntsville, Alabama. AIKEN ELECTRIC: Customers Set to Get Settlement Payouts ------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Cabbagestalk, writing for WJBF, reports that Aiken Electric Cooperative customer who received power between January 1, 2007, and January 31, 2020, may receive an unexpected bill credit or check in late November or December. The bill credits (for amounts less than $25) and checks (for amounts $25 or greater) are the results of the settlement of a class-action lawsuit involving the failed nuclear construction project at V.C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station in Fairfield County. The funds are being paid by Santee Cooper, which owned the project along with SCE&G (now Dominion Energy). Aiken Electric Cooperative did not own the project. However, because Aiken Electric buys some of the power they deliver to members from Santee Cooper, some members may be due bill credits or payments. Aiken Electric Cooperative did not calculate the payments. They resulted from a court-approved process after a settlement agreement was reached between the parties in the class-action lawsuit. If you have any questions regarding the administration of the Settlement, you may contact the Settlement Administrator. Please include your name and your return address on all correspondence. Cook v. SCPSA, Class Action Administrator, P.O. Box 3127, Portland, OR 97208-3127 1-833-947-0894 (Toll-Free) info@SanteeCooperClassAction.com Aiken Electric, a Touchstone Energy cooperative, is a not-for-profit, member-owned utility that strives to provide reliable, competitively priced energy and other services desired by its members. The co-op serves more than 48,000 customers in a nine-county area. [GN] ALBANY COUNTY, NY: Dolberry Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Craig D. Apple, et al. The case is styled as Andre Dolberry, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Craig D. Apple, Mailroom Staff, Case No. 9:20-cv-01535-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020). The case alleges civil rights violations. Sheriff Craig Apple began his law enforcement career in 1989 as a corrections officer for the Albany Sheriff's Department in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Albany County Correctional Facility in New York, appears pro se. ALCOA USA: Simpkins Sues Over Healthcare Coverage Halt for Retirees ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT W. SIMPKINS and LYNNETTE J. KAISER; UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO/CLC; and ALUMINUM TRADES COUNCIL OF WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALCOA USA CORP.; RETIREES GROUP BENEFIT PLAN FOR CERTAIN HOURLY EMPLOYEES OF ALCOA USA CORP.; MEDICARE EXCHANGE HEALTHCARE REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREES OF ALCOA; and ALCOA MEDICARE PART B REIMBURSEMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN MEDICARE ELIGIBLE RETIREES OF ALCOA USA, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00278-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 10, 2020) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Unions and Alcoa negotiated a series of collectively bargained agreements which establish the Alcoa's obligation to provide retiree healthcare coverage to Medicare-eligible Class Members and preclude the Company from unilaterally terminating this coverage. For decades, the parties have understood that Alcoa was not free to unilaterally reduce or eliminate this coverage, and have acted consistently with this understanding. The parties' decades-long understanding about the duration of retiree healthcare benefits was consistent with the customs, practices, and usages in the aluminum industry. Retirees earned the right to Company-provided retiree healthcare coverage for themselves and their eligible dependents through decades of employment. Class Members rely on their right to receive Company-provided retiree healthcare coverage for their healthcare needs. Despite the collectively bargained contract provisions, as well as other promises to provide continuing coverage to Class Members, Alcoa has announced that, effective January 1, 2021, it will unilaterally terminate the retiree healthcare coverage it has provided to Medicare-eligible Class Members for decades. For Retirees and spouses but not for disabled adult children, Alcoa will replace the comprehensive medical and prescription drug benefits it contracted to provide with limited funds conveyed through a "Health Reimbursement Arrangement" or "HRA". Disabled adult children who have long received healthcare coverage from Alcoa will not receive even an HRA contribution. Alcoa Corporation manufactures metal products. The Company produces and sells bauxite, alumina, and aluminum products. Alcoa serves aluminum industry worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. Barry A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON LLP 445 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 401 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Facsimile: (317) 637-2369 E-mail: jmacey@maceylaw.com bmacey@maceylaw.com - and - Pamina Ewing, Esq. Joel R. Hurt, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Es. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1300 Pittsburgh, PAa 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 Facsimile: (412) 281-1007 E-mail: pewing@fdpklaw.com jhurt@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com - and - David R. Jury, Esq. 60 Boulevard of the Allies, Room 807 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 562-2549 Facsimile: (412) 562-2574 E-mail: djury@usw.org ALIERA COMPANIES: Albina Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Aliera Companies, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hanna Albina, Austin Willard, on behalf of others similarly situated v. The Aliera Companies, Inc., Trinity Healthshare, Inc., Oneshare Health, LLC doing business as: Unity Healthshare, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00496-JMH (E.D. Ky., Dec. 11, 2020). The case arises from contract-related issues. Aliera Companies -- https://www.alieracompanies.com/ -- is focused on providing options and services to a multitude of industries that fit every need and budget. The company provides services to support its subsidiaries which focus on the aspects of the health care industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Todd Varellas, Esq. James John Varellas, III, Esq. VARELLAS & VARELLAS 249 W. Short Street, Suite 201 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 252-4473 Fax: (859) 252-4476 Email: tvarellas@varellaslaw.com - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONMORE HAAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Phone: (206) 223-0303 Fax: (206) 223-0246 - and - George Farah, Esq. Rebecca P. Chang, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (212) 477-8090 Fax: (844) 300-1952 - and - Jerome Park Prather, Esq. William R. Garmer, Esq. GARMER & PRATHER, PLLC 141 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 254-9352 Fax: (859) 233-9769 Email: jprather@garmerprather.com bgarmer@garmerprather.com ALLAKOS INC: Kim's Securities Class Action Underway --------------------------------------------------- Allakos Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself against a putative securities class action complaint captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.). On March 10, 2020, the putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Alexander, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo Redmond. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical trials of lirentelimab (AK002). The proposed class period is August 5, 2019, through December 17, 2019, inclusive. On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding as defendants Adam Tomasi, the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, and Henrik Rasmussen, the Company's Chief Medical Officer. Allakos said, "Given the early stage of this litigation matter, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a range of potential future losses and has not recorded a contingent liability accrual as of September 30, 2020." Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various mast cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in Redwood City, California. ALTERYX INC: Faces Three Putative Class Suits in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Alteryx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company faces three putative class action suits related to its alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Three putative securities class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain of its executive officers in U.S. federal court relating to alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder: (1) Smith v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01540 (CD Cal.), filed on August 19, 2020; (2) Chau v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01886 (CD Cal.), filed on September 30, 2020; and (3) Lalgudi v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01910 (CD Cal.), filed on October 2, 2020. Each of these cases asserts claims on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between May 6, 2020 and August 6 or 7, 2020, inclusive, and that such persons and entities were harmed as a result of alleged false or misleading statements, or alleged material omissions. These proceedings all remain in the early stages. Alteryx said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Because of the early stages of these matters, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters." Alteryx, Inc. operates a self-service data analytics software platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes and the productivity of their business analysts. Alteryx, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. AMAG PHARMA: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Zamfirova Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM, is pending. On November 1, 2019, the company was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, captioned Barnes v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-05088-RK (W.D. Mo.). Subsequently, other plaintiffs represented by the same law firm filed similar class action lawsuits in other jurisdictions, and the lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Zamfirova et al. v. AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 20-00152-JMV-SCM (April 2, 2020). The plaintiffs in this action, on behalf of themselves and purported state-wide classes of similarly situated consumers in California, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin, assert claims for violation of state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment based on allegations that the company and/or its predecessor companies made misrepresentations and omissions regarding the effectiveness of Makena in connection with the sale and marketing of that product from 2011 through the present. On June 8, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs responded with a brief in opposition to the motion on July 6, 2020. The company's reply brief was filed on July 20, 2020. AMAG said, "We are currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any." AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company developing products that treat iron deficiency anemia in adult patients. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts. AMAZON.COM INC: Wiretaps Drivers' Facebook Groups, Jackson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DRICKEY JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02365-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2020) arises from the Defendant's unlawful conduct that violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint asserts that the Defendant wiretaps the electronic communications of Amazon Flex Drivers' closed Facebook groups. The wiretaps are used by the Defendant to secretly observe and monitor Flex Drivers' electronic communications and confidential postings in their closed Facebook groups, through the use of monitoring tools, automated software, and dedicated employees with backgrounds in signals intelligence and communications intelligence. Specifically, the Defendant allegedly monitored these closed groups secretly and gathered information about planned strikes or protests, unionizing efforts, pay, benefits, deliveries, warehouse conditions, driving conditions, and whether workers had been approached by researchers examining Amazon's workforce, the suit days. Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com AMBER AVALON: Collado Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Line Cooks ----------------------------------------------------------- ARIEL ANTONIO PIMENTEL COLLADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE AMBER AVALON CORP. d/b/a HOTEL CHANTELLE, GOOD PAL CHANTELLE CORP. d/b/a HOTEL CHANTELLE, GOOD PAL RAVEL CORP. d/b/a RAVEL HOTEL, RAVEL HOTEL LLC d/b/a RAVEL HOTEL, 163 HOPE STREET LLC f/d/b/a/ THE REGAL DINER AND COCKTAIL BAR, RAVI PATEL, and SETH LEVINE, Case No. 1:20-cv-10410 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) arises from the unlawful labor practices of the Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and the Class the minimum and overtime wages to which they were entitled, failed to provide spread-of-hours pay for each day during which they worked in excess of 10 hours, failed to pay on a weekly basis, failed to provide wage notices, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a line cook from approximately May 10, 2013 until September 27, 2018. The Amber Avalon Corp. is a New York corporation that, along with Good Pal Chantelle Corp., owns, operates, and does business as Hotel Chantelle. Good Pal Ravel Corp. is a New York Corporation that, along with Ravel Hotel LLC, owns, operates, and does business as Ravel Hotel. 163 Hope Street LLC is a New York Corporation that at all relevant times owned, operated, and did business as The Regal Diner and Cocktail Bar. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Galen C. Baynes, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com baynes@pechmanlaw.com AMCOR PLC: Consolidated Dixon-Stein Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- Amcor plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend the consolidated Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. and Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. class suit. Two lawsuits brought by purported holders of Bemis Company, Inc. stock against Bemis and Bemis directors and officers are pending in federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations. Plaintiffs allege a failure to adequately disclose information in the proxy statement issued in connection with the Amcor-Bemis merger. The cases are: Dixon, et al. v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al. and Stein v. Bemis Company, Inc. et al., which were instituted on April 15, 2019 and April 17, 2019, respectively. On March 10, 2020, the federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated the two pending cases into a single class action. The Company intends to defend the claims made in the pending actions. It is too early for the Company to provide any reliable assessment of the likely quantum of any damages that may become payable if its defense is unsuccessful in whole or in part. Although it is not possible at present to establish a reliable assessment of damages, there can be no assurance that any damages that may be awarded will not be material to the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. Amcor plc is a holding company originally incorporated under the name Arctic Jersey Limited as a limited company under the Laws of the Bailiwick of Jersey in July 2018, in order to effect the Company's combination with Bemis Company, Inc. On October 10, 2018, Arctic Jersey Limited was renamed "Amcor plc" and became a public limited company incorporated under the Laws of the Bailiwick of Jersey. AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Rollman Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHANE ROLLMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. AMERICAN MERCHANDISING SPECIALISTS, INC., a North Carolina corporation doing business as AMS Retail Solutions, AUTOMATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., a Virginia corporation doing business as AMS Retail Solutions and DOES I through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2020-00283600-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02371-KJM-JDP to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. American Merchandising Specialists Inc. provides retail merchandising and marketing services. The Company offers on-going retail coverage, planogram compliance, new product launch execution, update and maintenance of displays, installation of POP and endcaps, store surveys and audits. American Merchandising Specialists operates in the United States. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: John L. Barber, Esq. Efthalia S. Rofos, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 545-9200 Facsimile: (714) 850-1030 E-mail: John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com Thalia.Rofos@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Armine Antonyan, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 E-mail: Armine.Antonyan@lewisbrisbois.com AMNEAL PHARMA: Bid to Nix Cambridge Retirement System's Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19. On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company and fourteen current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19). Plaintiff principally alleges that the amended registration statement and prospectus issued on May 7, 2018 in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading, insofar as it purportedly failed to disclose that Amneal was an active participant in an alleged antitrust conspiracy with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix generic drug prices, and that this secret collusion improperly bolstered Amneal's financial results reflected in the registration statement. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class and unspecified compensatory and/or recessionary damages. On March 31, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held telephonically on July 14, 2020 and, on July 15, 2020, the court entered an order denying the motion. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Continues to Defend Eaton Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a proposed class action suit entitled, Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al., No. T-607-20. On June 3, 2020, the Company and Impax were named in a proposed class action complaint filed in the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto, Ontario against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of a putative class of individuals who have purchased generic drugs in the private sector from 2012 to present (Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al., No. T-607-20). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy in Canada among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of Canada's Competition Act. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, $2.75 billion in monetary damages or compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest, and costs. Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Dismissal of Pension Fund Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal taken by lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund from the district court's orders dismissing its securities class action is ongoing. On April 17, 2017, lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG). Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 26, 2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019. A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on May 2, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Court entered an order granting Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice. On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from both dismissal orders with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff's opening brief was filed with the Ninth Circuit on February 14, 2020, Impax's answering brief was filed on May 15, 2020, and plaintiff filed its reply brief on August 4, 2020. Oral argument is scheduled for December 9, 2020. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation Beginning in March 2016, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect reseller purchasers, (end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax Laboratories, Inc. (now Impax Laboratories, LLC). The end-payor plaintiffs comprised Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprised KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprised The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. 32 On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 (as amended December 21, 2018) by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole. Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants' motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs' glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products, including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint in their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9 additional states and territories against several defendants; the relief sought and allegations concerning the Company (including the products allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance companies and managed health care providers (America's 1st Choice of South Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 190702094), naming as defendants in the putative action the same generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and individuals named in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. However, to date, no complaint has been filed or served in this action. On December 12, 2019, the court entered an Order placing the case in deferred status pending further developments in MDL No. 2724. On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-2696), following on and supplementing its original action, asserting antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 25, 2019, the lawsuit was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit, and similarly seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-4862), and likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On November 14, 2019, the Company was named in a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of 14 counties in the state of New York, who allege to be both direct and end-payor purchasers of generic pharmaceutical drugs (County of Nassau, et al., v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al., No. 616029/2019). The complaint asserts antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff Counties seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 17, 2019, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No. 2:19-cv-7071) and, on January 3, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On December 11, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a complaint filed in E.D. Pa. by Health Care Service Corp., a customer-owned health insurer opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (Health Care Service Corp. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-5819-CMR). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 16, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Impax and against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of assignees of claims from third-party health benefit plans, opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-1972-SRU), and alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to Impax, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On January 10, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On December 19, 2019, the end-payor plaintiffs filed a new complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, metronidazole, amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules, cyproheptadine HCL tablets, methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On September 4, 2020, the end-payor plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including additional allegations with respect to Impax concerning calcipotriene and mometasone furoate. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 20, 2019, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed a new complaint naming the Company, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. The new complaint is brought on behalf of both independent pharmacies and hospitals, and asserts antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (as well as distributors of generic pharmaceuticals, including AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson Corporation) arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On March 11, 2020, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 27, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Molina Healthcare, Inc., a publicly-traded healthcare management organization opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-8438). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML, to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On February 7, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a new complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules, methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On October 21, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH). The Company, Amneal, and AvKARE, Inc. have been named as defendants, along with numerous other manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and wholesalers, in several putative class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, filed on behalf of consumers who purchased and third-party payors who paid or made reimbursements for prescription generic metformin products manufactured by or for defendants, alleging that defendants made and sold to putative class members metformin products that were "adulterated" or "contaminated" with N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or "NDMA")and thus "worthless," and therefore that plaintiffs suffered economic losses in connection with their purchases or reimbursements. On June 3, 2020, the D.N.J. consolidated the lawsuits, as In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH). On July 6, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consolidated economic loss class action complaint, in which they seek, in addition to class certification, among other things, unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, statutory penalties, and equitable relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action on October 8, 2020. Plaintiffs' opposition is due on November 23, 2020, and defendants' reply is due on December 21, 2020. In October 2020, the Company and AvKARE, Inc. were named as defendants, along with Walmart, in two additional medical monitoring class action lawsuits pending in the D.N.J., filed on behalf of individuals who consumed metformin that was allegedly "contaminated" with NDMA and who allegedly suffered "cellular damage, genetic harm, and/or are at an increased risk of developing cancer as a result, but have not yet been diagnosed with cancer." Plaintiffs, therefore, seek for defendants to fund medical motoring, including, but not limited, to evaluations and treatments. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to this matter. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMPEX BRANDS: Terrell Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN TERRELL & JAMES FOSTER, each individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. AMPEX BRANDS PH OF DALLAS, INC. d/b/a PIZZA HUT, Case No. 3:20-cv-03582-E (N.D. Tex., Dec. 7, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants uniformly failed to reimburse them and the Class members at any reasonable approximation of the cost of owning and operating its vehicles for Defendant's benefit. They also bring this lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours. Plaintiff Terrell was employed by the Defendant from approximately September 2016 to February 2018 as a delivery driver at Defendant's Pizza Hut store located in Texas. Ampex Brands PH of Dallas, Inc. owns and operate numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores in Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Meredith Black Mathews, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul St. #700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com mmathews@foresterhaynie.com - and - Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com ANGI HOMESERVICES: Class Suit vs. HomeAdvisor Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that HomeAdvisor Inc., continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation. ANGI said, "This purported class action pending in Colorado is described in detail on page 24 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, both filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado and consolidated under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation." This lawsuit alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges. On September 29, 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss and with the exception of this development, there have been no material or otherwise noteworthy developments in this case since the filing of the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. ANTHEM: To Pay $39.5 Million Over 2014 Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- businessrecord.com reports that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller joined 43 other attorneys general in a $39.5 million settlement with health benefits company Anthem over a 2014 data breach that involved personal information of 78.8 million citizens, the attorney general's office announced this week. Iowa will receive $199,694 from the settlement. Anthem first disclosed the data breach in February 2015, one year after the company said cyber attackers had begun infiltrating Anthem's systems in February 2014 using malware installed through a phishing email. Attackers ultimately accessed names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health care identification numbers, home addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information for 172,727 Iowa residents. Anthem has also entered a class action settlement that established a $115 million settlement fund for affected consumers to pay for credit monitoring and cash payments up to $50. [GN] APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Remand Fongers Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to remand the putative class action initiated by Benjamin Fongers from the Northern District of Illinois to the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, remains pending. On November 1, 2019, plaintiff Benjamin Fongers filed a putative class action in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, against CareerBuilder, LLC and AGM Inc. Plaintiff alleges that in March 2019, CareerBuilder changed its compensation plan so that sales representatives such as Fongers would (i) receive reduced commissions; and (ii) only be able to receive commissions for accounts they originated that were not reassigned to anyone else, a departure from the earlier plan. Plaintiff also claims that the plan applied retroactively to deprive sales representatives of commissions to which they were earlier entitled. Plaintiff alleges that AGM Inc. exercises complete control over CareerBuilder and thus, CareerBuilder acts as AGM Inc.'s agent. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff alleges claims against both defendants for breach of written contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Sales Representative Act, and violation of the Illinois Wage and Payment Collection Act. The defendants removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois on December 5, 2019, and Plaintiff moved to remand on January 6, 2020. That motion was fully briefed on February 14, 2020. Defendants' deadline to respond to the complaint is 21 days after the court rules on the remand motion. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. APOLLO GLOBAL: Securities Suit Over PlayAGS Disclosures Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC together with PlayAGS Inc. continues to defend a putative class action suit currently pending before the District of Nevada. On August 4, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against PlayAGS Inc., all of the members of PlayAGS's board of directors (including three directors who are affiliated with Apollo), certain underwriters of AGS (including Apollo Global Securities, LLC), as well as AGM Inc., Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., Apollo Gaming Holdings, L.P., and Apollo Gaming Voteco, LLC. The complaint asserts claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with certain secondary offerings of PlayAGS stock conducted in August 2018 and March 2019, alleging that the registration statements issued in connection with those offerings did not fully disclose certain business challenges facing PlayAGS. Such claims are asserted against all defendants, including Apollo Global Securities, LLC and the Apollo Defendants, as well as all directors (including the directors affiliated with Apollo). The complaint further asserts a control person claim under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants (including the directors affiliated with Apollo), alleging that the Apollo Defendants and the director defendants were responsible for certain misstatements and omissions by PlayAGS about its business during a putative class period from May 3, 2018 through August 7, 2019. Apollo believes the claims in this action are without merit. Because this action is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, Inc. is a publicly owned investment manager. The firm primarily provides its services to endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. It manages client-focused portfolios. The firm was formerly known as Apollo Global Management, LLC. Apollo Global Management, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York City, with additional offices in North America, Asia and Europe. AQUI EN BELLA: Moreno Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIONISIO MORENO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. AQUI EN BELLA PUEBLA, INC. (D/B/A AQUI EN BELLA PUEBLA), DANIEL GILL, ARGIMIRO G. HERNANDEZ , GUADALUPE GIL and VANESSA GIL, Case No. 1:20-cv-10406 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to pay him and the Class members applicable minimum hourly rate, failed to pay proper overtime compensation, failed to provide accurate and complete timesheets and payroll records, failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to reimburse the costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment and required to perform his job. Plaintiff Moreno was employed by the Defendants at Aqui En Bella Puebla restaurant from approximately 2013 until on or about November 2, 2020 as a grill worker and a counter worker. The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican restaurant, located in New York under the name "Aqui En Bella Puebla." [BN] The Plaintiff is 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 ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Employment Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a company subsidiary continues to defend an employment class action suit in California. A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's hotel management companies alleging violations of certain California employment laws, which class action affects nine hotels owned by subsidiaries of the Company. The court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of the company's manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the company's manager's previous policy requiring its employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees of the company's manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members are being prepared. Upon receipt, recipients of the notice will have 60 days to opt out of the class. Ashford said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we may incur a loss associated with this litigation because the class size has not yet been determined and there is uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant legal issue, we do not believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably estimable at this time. As of September 30, 2020, no amounts have been accrued." Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels, the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas, Texas. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY: Membrives Class Action Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Pedro Membrives. On December 4, 2015, Pedro Membrives filed a class action lawsuit against HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Mark A. Sharkey, Archie Bennett, Jr., Monty J. Bennett, Christopher Peckham, and any other related entities in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, Commercial Division. On August 30, 2016, the complaint was amended to add Michele Spero as a Plaintiff and Remington Long Island Employers, LLC as a defendant. The lawsuit is captioned Pedro Membrives and Michele Spero, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HHC TRS FP Portfolio LLC, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC, Remington Holdings LLC, Remington Long Island Employers, LLC, et al., Index No. 607828/2015 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty). The plaintiffs allege that the owner and management company of the Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel violated New York law by improperly retaining service charges rather than distributing them to employees. In 2017, the class was certified. On July 24, 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability. The defendants appealed the summary judgment to the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department (the “Second Department”), and the appeal is still pending. By Order dated May 7, 2020, the Second Department referred the matter for mandatory mediation. The parties participated in mediation on June 22, 2020, however, they were not able to arrive at mutually acceptable settlement terms. Notwithstanding the pending appeal on the summary judgment issue, the trial court continued the litigation with respect to the plaintiffs' alleged damages. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' claims and the Company does not believe that an unfavorable outcome is probable. Ashford said, "If, however, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability is upheld and the Company is unsuccessful in any further appeals, the Company estimates that damages could range between approximately $5.8 million and $11.9 million plus attorneys' fees. As of September 30, 2020, no amounts have been accrued." Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, is an externally-advised REIT. While the company's portfolio currently consists of upscale hotels and upper upscale full-service hotels, the company's investment strategy is predominantly focused on investing in upper upscale full-service hotels in the U.S. that have a revenue per available room ("RevPAR") generally less than two times the U.S. national average. The company is based in Dalas, Texas. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Appeal on Huang Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the order of dismissal in Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal., is still pending. On May 20, 2020, the company completed a Merger (the Zyla Merger) with Zyla Life Sciences (Zyla) pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 16, 2020. Prior to the Zyla Merger, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the company completed a corporate reorganization whereby Assertio Holdings, Inc. became the parent company of wholly-owned Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. and is deemed successor issuer to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. under applicable securities laws. On August 23, 2017, the Company, two individuals who formerly served as its chief executive officer and president, and its former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August 7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 17, 2019, and the District Court granted that motion with prejudice on March 11, 2020. On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-appellants filed their opening brief on September 23, 2020, and defendants-appellees filed their response on October 23, 2020. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously. Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company offering differentiated products to patients. The company's commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas: neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Class Certification Bid in Glumetza(R) Suit OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- Assertio Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that court granted class certification in the direct purchaser action suit related to the drug Glumetza(R). On May 20, 2020, the company completed a Merger with Zyla Life Sciences pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) dated March 16, 2020. Prior to the Zyla Merger, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the company completed a corporate reorganization whereby Assertio Holdings, Inc. became the parent company of wholly-owned Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. and is deemed successor issuer to Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. under applicable securities laws. Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have been filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to the drug Glumetza(R). The named class representatives in the currently pending actions include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. These class representatives seek to represent a putative class of direct purchasers of Glumetza. In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers. On December 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the actions. That motion was heard by the District Court on February 20, 2020. On March 5, 2020 the District Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. However, based on the order on the motion, claims previously filed by a putative class of end payor plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed. On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. also filed a complaint against the Company in the Northern District of California alleging similar claims related to Glumetza(R). These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin's Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a "reverse payment" that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a generic version of Glumetza. The alleged "reverse payment" is an alleged commitment on the part of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus) are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza® due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys' fees and costs. Fact discovery has closed, and the parties are currently conducting expert discovery. The court granted class certification in the direct purchaser action on August 15, 2020. In the event that the case proceeds to trial, that trial is expected to occur on or about October 2021. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. Assertio Holdings, Inc. a commercial pharmaceutical company offering differentiated products to patients. The company's commercial portfolio of branded products focuses on three areas: neurology; hospital; and pain and inflammation. The company is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS, is still pending. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-TRM-CHS. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements and that the individual defendants are control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. The Company disputes these allegations and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously and filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 25, 2019 which is pending. The Company has accrued a $0.6 million liability as of September 30, 2020. Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing industries in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. AUBURN COMMUNITY: Underpays Hospital Staff, Pizzoleo Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOBIE PIZZOLEO and STACEY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by AUBURN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by AUBURN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Plaintiffs v. AUBURN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and any related entities, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01529-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y., December 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and Class members the required minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and failing to provide annual wage notices. Auburn Community Hospital is an acute care hospital, with a principal place of business at 17 Lansing Street, Auburn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com - and – Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY Telephone: (315) 314-8000 Facsimile: (315) 446-7521 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com AUSTRALIA: Robo-Debt Victims Want Ministers to Face Inquiry ----------------------------------------------------------- Nick Bonyhady and David Estcourt, writing for Brisbane Times, report that victims of the unlawful "robo-debt" scheme have demanded ministers and top officials face a royal commission grilling over what they knew of the scheme's failures after the government settled a class action on the morning of a trial that could have put it in the dock. The federal government agreed on Nov. 16 to pay $112 million in compensation, interest and legal costs to up to 430,000 people who were affected by the scheme, which recouped alleged welfare overpayments calculated through a flawed method. The settlement of the class action launched by law firm Gordon Legal also includes an agreement to drop $398 million in alleged extra debts and a reiteration of its commitment to repay an estimated $721 million taken in through the robo-debt program. The settlement on the morning of Nov. 16 scheduled trial meant senior government figures avoided having to give evidence, but it has not deterred opposition parties and welfare groups pushing for answers. "If they think I'm giving up on a royal commission, they're dreaming," said Labor's government services spokesman Bill Shorten, who helped spark the class action. "Now it is time for the Morrison government to fess up who knew what when." The government has not accepted any liability as part of the settlement, which still has to be approved by the court. Government Services Minister Stuart Robert said the income averaging technique at the heart of the robo-debt scheme had been used under both Labor and Liberal governments. "The process of using ATO [Australian Taxation Office] average income data has been a process that has been used for decades and decades," Mr Robert said. "Indeed right back to the Hawke-Keating governments this approach has been used as a part of collecting debts." Income-averaging had been used as a last resort under human supervision, but then-treasurer Scott Morrison announced a massive expansion and automation of the technique in a cost-saving measure just before the 2016 election. Ministers including now-acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge and Mr Robert have since overseen the program, which a court found was "unlawful" last year. The robo-debt scheme was scrapped in May, with the Commonwealth announcing it would pay back $721 million to about 373,000 people. The Nov. 16 settlement is worth about $1.2 billion, a record amount. Mr Morrison, who in June apologised for any "hurt or harm" people suffered as a result of the government's scheme, stood by Mr Robert and praised his work on dealing with the coronavirus. Both the Greens and the Australian Unemployed Workers Union also called for a royal commission into what Greens senator Rachel Siewert branded an "abominable action" that "went after the most vulnerable in our community to make savings". Thomas Studans, an AUWU spokesman, said he wanted more information from Gordon Legal, the firm running the class action, on why they had chosen to settle the case. "[Victims] are due a lot more, to be honest, and so far no one has lost their job over this and it has been the subject of a billion-dollar court case," Mr Studans said. Under the settlement, people affected by the scheme will be repaid money unlawfully recouped and then compensated an average of about $280. Gordon Legal's costs will also come out of that amount at a rate overseen by the court. "We think the agreement we've reached speaks for itself," said Andrew Grech, a partner at Gordon Legal. "It provides great clarity and great certainty for group members, even those that don't benefit from the settlement directly." Former Administrative Appeals Tribunal Member Terry Carney, who was one of the first people to find robo-debts unlawful in 2017, said the compensation should have been higher in an ideal world but was a "wonderful result" given the difficulty of suing the government. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Settles Robodebt Victims' Class Action for $1.2 Billion ------------------------------------------------------------------ Luke Henriques-Gomes, writing for The Guardian, reports that the Australian government has agreed to a $1.2 billion settlement for a class action brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of robodebt victims. In a deal struck the day a federal court trial was set to begin, 400,000 people will share in $112 million in additional compensation, the firm running the action, Gordon Legal, announced on Nov. 16. The settlement also includes commitments to repay $720 million in debts and wipe a further $400 million in unlawful demands, which the government had agreed to in a humiliating backdown in May. The government did not admit to any liability or knowledge of the scheme's unlawfulness as part of the settlement. Andrew Grech, a partner at Gordon Legal, told Guardian Australia the lead applicants had shown "enormous courage and determination". "When you think about the totality of what's been achieved since the proceedings were commenced, that really amounts to more than $1.2bn," he said. Subject to the court's agreement, Grech said it was hoped the money would be repaid by the end of next year. "We are really relieved and pleased for our clients," he said. Since 2016, community campaigners including the NotMyDebt group have relentlessly resisted the program. Guardian Australia has reported extensively on the flaws of the robodebt program, which used annual pay data obtained from the tax office to accuse welfare recipients of under-reporting their fortnightly income to Centrelink. Welfare recipients, including some who were homeless, had poor mental health or lived with disabilities, complained of being pursued by private debt collectors and having their tax returns garnished as part of the scheme, which ran from July 2015 to November 2019. In March, four months after the government conceded a test case brought by Victoria Legal Aid, Guardian Australia revealed that the government was drawing up secret plans to repay victims of the scheme. Those plans were eventually announced in May, and the government began repaying victims in July. About $690 million has now been refunded. Confidential government advice seen by the Guardian revealed the decision to "proactively" announce the refunds in May was aimed at stymying the class action, which argued that the commonwealth had "unjustly enriched" itself. Grech said a settlement distribution scheme would determine compensation for victims based on how much was "unlawfully demanded and paid to the commonwealth over the period". "Their entitlement to the damages or compensation component is determined proportionately to how much they paid," he said. "It's a time-based assessment . . . of the time period to which they'd been kept out of their money." Guardian Australia has previously reported that interest owed by the government on the debts has been estimated at about $90 million. Grech told a press conference he was unable to say how much of the compensation would be sucked up by legal fees. He said the court would make a determination based on evidence provided by the firm. Scott Morrison said his government has been focused on "making this right". Asked on Nov. 16 if he would apologise for the scheme, the prime minister referred reporters to comments he made in parliament earlier in the year in which he apologised for any "hurt or harm" caused. "I made remarks on that in the Parliament earlier this year," he said. I can only refer you back to those where I did just that." Morrison noted that the government had already paid back more than $700 million of the $721 million it promised to repay in May. "Remember these payments have been made at the same time that working through government services and our agencies we've had to enlist some 1.6 million Australians on to jobseeker. "But for us to still follow through on the commitments we made here to make this right, we have done exactly that and the settlement announced on Nov. 16 is a further demonstration of that." Morrison rejected suggestions the government services minister, Stuart Robert, should lose his job over the scandal. Robert was not involved in the creation of the program, which was established in 2015, but has been in charge during an initial legal challenge in 2019. "I would say that the minister has been the one working together with the attorney general [Christian Porter] having identified the issue of . . . making it right," he said. "This is the same minister who ensured that 1.6 million Australians have been able to access vital income support, particularly here in Melbourne at a time of great crisis and so to be able to deal with both of these challenges at the same time, suggests to me that he's been getting very much on top this issue." Labor's government services spokesman, Bill Shorten, said it was now "time for the Morrison government to fess up who knew what when". "Call me a bit sceptical, but the only reason why the Morrison government surrendered is they had the hot breath of the court on their throat," said Shorten, who was involved in establishing the class action. Shorten, as well as the Greens and grassroots campaigners, have called for a royal commission into the scheme. The Greens senator Rachel Siewert said: "Now the community needs to know how this all happened. We need a royal commission because it's very clear that the government is going to continue to keep trying to hide what has happened." The Not My Debt campaign, which has rallied against the scheme since the scandal first erupted, commended the firm for reaching the settlement but noted some victims may have "hoped for more from the process". It also said the settlement meant no government ministers or officials would "be required to give evidence in court". "No one in a position of power has lost their job over Robodebt -- no one has been held accountable," the campaign said. Services Australia, which ran the program, acknowledged the settlement in a brief statement. It noted that the settlement did not amount to an "admission of liability by the Commonwealth, and does not reflect any acceptance by the Commonwealth of the allegations that the Commonwealth, or any of its officers, had any knowledge of unlawfulness associated with the income compliance program". As the trial date neared, Gordon Legal had increased the volume of its claims against the government, accusing the commonwealth of continuing the program despite knowing it was unlawful, and singling out individual officials and ministers for their conduct. In September the trial was delayed after the firm accused the minister Alan Tudge of either knowing the scheme was unlawful or being "recklessly indifferent". It also claimed that the government had lost 76 robodebt decisions at the administrative appeals tribunal, which it then had failed to appeal, meaning the judgments were never made public. Gordon Legal's claims were denied by the government, and Department of Social Services officials later said at a Senate estimates hearing that the tribunal had also upheld robodebt cases. The class action settlement applies only to people who had their debts calculated using the "income averaging" method. Those who responded to a debt letter by providing payslips or bank statements that were later used to substantiate their debt will not receive refunds. Gordon Legal had previously argued in court that those debts were also "tainted". "While I can understand their confusion and their disappointment, it's never been this case that people who owe money to Centrelink shouldn't repay it," Grech told Guardian Australia. [GN] AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Made in Hackel Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the time for appeal in David Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT, has expired in August 2020 without appeal. On July 24, 2020, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a purported class action filed against the Company in 2019. This purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its present and former officers, Michael Bailey, Matthew Dallas, and Keith Ehrlich, in the Southern District of New York for the District of New York, captioned David Hackel v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-01722-AT. On April 12, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:19-cv-10783-JCB). On May 6, 2019, the court appointed Andrej Hornak as lead plaintiff and approved Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Andrews DeValerio LLP as liaison counsel. On July 24, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Michael Needle as a defendant. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between May 4, 2017 through January 31, 2019. It generally alleged that the Company and its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose and/or making allegedly false and/or misleading statements about the estimated dates by which the Company would report the topline results from the TIVO-3 trial, the preliminary overall survival results from the TIVO-3 trial, the sufficiency of the overall survival data from the TIVO-3 trial, the timing of the new drug application (NDA) submission, and the risk of Food and Drug Administration approval. The complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On September 27, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 24, 2020, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss. The time for appeal expired in August 2020 without appeal. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes a portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. The company was formerly known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. AVIS BUDGET: Alexander Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Sales Agents -------------------------------------------------------------- KIBIBI ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC.; and AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10494 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Alexander was employed by the Defendant as sales agent. Avis Budget Group, Inc. operates as a vehicle rental and mobility solution service. The Company also participates in app-based, carsharing operations. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN KWON & LAM LLP 521 5th Avenue, Suite 1744 New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (718) 971-0326 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com BARINGS BDC: Appeal in Triangle Capital Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal from a ruling in the class action suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina) on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL. The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL. The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL. On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated Amended Complaint. The complaint alleged certain violations of the securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 7, 2019, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 20, 2019, the court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and dismissing the action with prejudice. On October 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the court's September 20, 2019 order. The plaintiff filed its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on January 6, 2020. The defendants filed their response brief on February 28, 2020, and the plaintiff filed its reply brief on March 27, 2020. The appeal is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. BBVA USA: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Eisenberg Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACK EISENBERG, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA USA, and DOES 1 through 5, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02368-L-AHG (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. The complaint contends that BBVA has violated and continues to violate Federal Reserve Regulation E 12 C.F.R. Section 1005 since its Regulation E opt-in disclosure agreement provides customers including the Plaintiff with ambiguous and misleading language to describe the circumstances in which BBVA will charge the customer an overdraft fee. Specifically, the opt-in disclosure agreement does not disclose that BBVA uses an internal artificial account balance to determine if a debit card or ATM transaction will be considered overdrawn, instead of the official and actual balance of the account. Because Regulation E does not permit banks to charge overdraft fees without affirmative consent based on a proper and accurate disclosure of its overdraft practices in its stand-alone opt-in disclosure agreement, BBVA's assessment of all overdraft fees against customers for one-time debit card and ATM transactions has been and continues to be illegal. Further, BBVA's continued use of an improper and nonconforming disclosure agreement to "opt-in" new customers to its overdraft service is illegal under Regulation E, the suit says. BBVA USA is a bank headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama. It has been a subsidiary of the Spanish multinational Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria since 2007 and operates chiefly in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com - and - Emily J. Kirk, Esq. McCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP 231 N. Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 307-6116 Facsimile: (618) 307-6161 E-mail: ejk@mccunewright.com BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by Elissa Roberts remains pending. In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of California against the company, certain members of its senior management team, and certain of its directors alleging violations under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its initial public offering (IPO). On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel. On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the underwriters in our initial public offering, claims under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and extending the class period to September 16, 2019. On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding claims under the Securities Act. The second amended complaint also adds allegations pertaining to the restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange Act, extends the class period through February 12, 2020. On July 1, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Bloom said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously. Because this action is in the early stages, we are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the consolidated Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund class action suit remains stayed. In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in its July 25, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended for alleged misleading statements or omissions in our Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with its IPO. Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7, 2019. These cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019. On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending the federal district court action. On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation. Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Francisco Sanchez. In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Bloom said, "We are still investigating the plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the complaint, but any range of potential loss is not currently estimable." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BLUE DIAMOND: Cosgrove Appeals Judgment in Fraud Suit to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ryan Cosgrove and Clive Rhoden filed an appeal from the District Court's Decision and Order dated December 7, 2020, and Judgment dated December 7, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled RYAN COSGROVE and CLIVE RHODEN, Plaintiffs v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-8993, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, bring this action against Blue Diamond Growers alleging that the labeling on Blue Diamond's Vanilla Almond Milk was materially misleading because "it has less vanilla than the label represents, contains non-vanilla flavors which provide its vanilla taste and contains artificial flavors, not disclosed to consumers on the front label as required by law and consumer expectations." The Plaintiffs contend that the product is not flavored by "authentic" vanilla, or the vanilla flavor extracted from the tropical orchid of the genus Vanilla. The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's Order, granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint of the Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss all pending motions and to close the case. The appellate case is captioned as Cosgrove v. Blue Diamond Growers, Case No. 20-4090, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, December 8, 2020. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Ryan Cosgrove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Clive Rhoden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 260-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com Defendant-Appellee Blue Diamond Growers is represented by: Colleen Gulliver, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4737 E-mail: colleen.carey@dlapiper.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Wins Dismissal of 3rd Amended Ignacuinos Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CARL IGNACUINOS and PAMELA DAVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-672 (SRU) (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted Boehringer's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety. The purported class action seeks monetary and injunctive relief for injuries caused by the alleged deceptive design, manufacturing, and marketing of Boehringer's pharmaceutical drug, Combivent Respimat. Combivent is a metered dose inhaler that is prescribed to alleviate symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"). Plaintiffs Ignacuinos and Davis allege that Boehringer falsely represents that each Combivent inhaler contains 120 doses. Ignacuinos, a Florida resident, is a long-time sufferer of COPD. Over the course 20-tour inhalers, Ignacuinos's inhalers delivered on average only 61 metered doses before each inhaler's dosage meter reached "0" and automatically locked, notwithstanding Boehringer's representations that each Product delivers 120 metered doses. As a result, Ignacuinos uses less than four puffs daily so that he can preserve the lifespan of his Combivent inhaler for an entire month, until he is prescribed another inhaler by his health care provider after 30 days have lapsed. Due to the Product's alleged defects, Ignacuinos routinely experiences bodily injury in the form of episodes with acute difficulty breathing because he does not have enough medication to alleviate his COPD symptoms. In addition, he alleges that he is deprived of the benefit of the bargain each time he pays for the Product. Davis, an Indiana resident, is a COPD patient who was first prescribed and purchased Combivent in 2016 to treat her COPD symptoms. After using approximately 30 Combivent inhalers since 2016, Davis reports that each Product delivers only about 70 doses. Because her medication runs low well in advance of the date of her next available prescription, Davis takes less than the daily amount of puffs recommended by Boehringer to extend the lifespan of her inhaler. Davis alleges that she has trouble breathing due to the Product's defects, which causes mental and emotional distress. The Plaintiffs note that other users of the Product have also complained about a shortfall in dosage. They further allege that the shortfall in dosage is not due to variance or any natural fluctuation in the manufacturing process. Instead, the consistent shortfall is based on the random sampling for each Product he receives, demonstrating a common scheme to defraud users. Based on those allegations, the Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. They seek to represent "all persons who purchased Combivent Respimat in the United States within the applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court may deem appropriate." In the alternative, Ignacuinos seeks to represent a Florida class of Combivent purchasers and Davis seeks to represent an Indiana class of purchasers. The Plaintiffs asserts the following claims against Boehringer: (A) A product liability claim under the Connecticut Product Liability Act ("CPLA"), based on (a) manufacturing defect, (b) failure to warn, (c) design defect, (d) negligence, (e) negligent design, (f) fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment, (g) negligent misrepresentation, (h) breach of express warranties, and (i) breach of implied warranties (Count I); (B) A statutory consumer protection claim under the Connecticut Unfair Practices Act ("CUTPA") (Count II); (C) Florida common law claims for Strict Liability—Manufacturing Defect (Count III) Strict Liability—Failure to Warn (Count IV); Strict Liability—Design Defect (Count V); Strict Liability—Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Count VI); Negligent Design Defect (Count VII); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count VIII); Breach of Express Warranties (Count IX); and Breach of Implied Warranties (Count X); (D) Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) (Count XI); Violations of the Indiana Product Liability Act ("IPLA"), based on (a) manufacturing defect, (b) failure to warn, and (c) design defect, (Count XII); (E) A breach of express warranties claim under Indiana law (Count XIII); (F) A breach of implied warranties claim under Indiana law (Count XIV); (G) Violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act Ind. Code Sections 24-5-0.5-1, et seq. (Count XV); (H) A constructive fraud claim under Indiana law (Count XVI); and (I) A Common Law Fraud claim under either Connecticut, Florida, or Indiana law (Count XVII). The Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in the form of: (1) changes to the Product's labeling and 'Instructions for Use' to reflect the fact that it does not live up to its unequivocal promise that the Combivent Respimat inhaler will deliver 120 metered doses; (2) a change in the design of the Product so that it actually delivers 120 metered doses; or (3) to the extent that the Product's design is sound, but the manufacturing process is compromised, improvements in the manufacturing process. Boehringer moves to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in its entirety, primarily arguing that: (1) the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing; and (2) the Plaintiffs' state law claims are preempted by federal law. On Sept. 2, 2020, Judge Underhill held oral argument and took the motion under advisement. Judge Underhill concludes that the Plaintiffs' self-reporting and collection of online reviews are not "reports of adverse events" within the meaning of "newly acquired information" because they are not grounded in scientific research. Although Ignacuinos and Davis diligently recorded their daily doses of the Product for an extended period, there is no suggestion that their own research was subjected to peer-review or "well-grounded in scientific evidence" as required by the FDA to alter a preapproved label. The same is true for their reliance on online consumer reviews from website such as WebMD and Drugs.com. Even if their reporting and the cited online reviews did constitute "reports of adverse events," the Plaintiffs do not provide any additional scientific analysis to accompany those reports or reviews. Therefore, the Judge granted Boehringer's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' manufacturing defect claims on preemption grounds. Based on the proposed changes in the Third Amended Complaint, Judge Underhill holds that the Plaintiffs are correct that an addition to a specification or changes in the methods or controls to provide increased assurance that the drug substance or drug product will have the characteristics of identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency that it purports or is represented to possess are "moderate" changes. Their requests, however, involve changes to the labeling on the Product (proposed change no. 1), changes to the dosage amount (proposed change no. 2), or changes to the design or manufacturing processes (proposed changes nos. 2 to 3), which all require prior FDA approval. Therefore, Judge Underhill granted Boehringer's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' design defect claims as well as claims alleging that the FDA approved label is inadequate, negligent, or fraudulent. For the reasons stated, Judge Underhill granted Boehringer's motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The Clerk will enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Ruling is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5cheobl from Leagle.com. BOEING CO: Burke Appeals Order in ERISA Suit to Seventh Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Diane Burke, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Diane Burke and Blake Parra, as participants in and on behalf of the Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan, and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. the Boeing Company, David A. Dohnalek, J. Michael Luttig, the Employee Benefit Plans Committee, the Employee Benefit Investment Committee, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02203, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek relief for Defendants' breaches of their ERISA fiduciary duties. The Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan (the "Plan") are plans designed to help Boeing's employees save for retirement. The Plans are defined contribution retirement plans. The Plans included as an investment option the VIP Stock Fund designed to invest in shares of stock of Boeing, the Plans' sponsor and the employer of the participants in the Plans. Plaintiffs invested in the VIP Stock Fund through their accounts in the Plan during the Class Period. However, for many years, Boeing's stock price has been artificially inflated. The 737 model commercial jet has been Boeing's bestselling aircraft for decades, and the recently developed Boeing 737 MAX series are the core of Boeing's growth plans. According to the complaint, the Defendants knew that Boeing's stock price was artificially inflated in value, and knew that many of the Plans' participants, including Plaintiffs, allocated significant portions of their retirement savings to Boeing stock and made additional purchases of Boeing stock for their retirement savings accounts in the Plans on an ongoing basis. However, the Defendants failed to take any action to protect the Plans and their participants. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose the truth about the safety problems with the 737 MAX publicly, even as it became inevitable that the public would learn about these safety problems Defendants stayed quiet as the Plans' participants, including Plaintiffs, continued to purchase and hold Boeing stock at the inflated price in their retirement savings accounts, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The appellate case is captioned as Diane Burke, et al v. Boeing Company, et al., Case No. 20-3389, in the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, December 9, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing Statement is due for Appellants Diane Burke, Mohammad Farooq Mustafa, Miguel Ibarra and Alex Proestakis by December 15, 2020; -- Transcript information sheet is due by December 23, 2020; -- Appellants' brief is due on or before January 19, 2021 for Diane Burke, Mohammad Farooq Mustafa, Miguel Ibarra and Alex Proestakis.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DIANE BURKE, ALEX PROESTAKIS, MIGUEL IBARRA, and MOHAMMAD FAROOQ MUSTAFA, as participants in and on behalf of the Boeing Voluntary Investment Plan, and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated, are represented by: James A. Bloom, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 200 Powell Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: jbloom@schneiderwallace.com Defendants-Appellees BOEING COMPANY, DAVID A. DOHNALEK, ROBERT E. VERBECK, BOEING EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, and BOEING EMPLOYEE BENEFIT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE are represented by: Deborah Shannon Davidson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-5094 Telephone: (312) 324-1159 E-mail: deborah.davidson@morganlewis.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons Sues Over 7.89% Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE JEVONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, MICHAEL F. MAHONEY and DANIEL J. BRENNAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-05894 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020) seeks to recover damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The federal securities class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific securities between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020, both dates inclusive. Boston Scientific develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical specialties worldwide. The Company's products include, among others, the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System, which is a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement product. Boston Scientific announced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval for the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System in April 2019. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii) as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 17, 2020, the Company announced a global recall of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System, citing "complexities associated with the product delivery system." Boston Scientific further announced that "given the additional time and investment required to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system, the company has chosen to retire the entire LOTUS product platform immediately." As a result, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 7.89%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17, 2020, the suit says. The Plaintiff acquired Boston Scientific securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed May 8, 2020), is pending. Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse. Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages, interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Brighthouse filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020 and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual annuities and individual life insurance products. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Patti TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled THOMAS PATTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a CHILI’S BAR AND GRILL, Defendant, Case No. CACE 2020-017897-CA-02, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Nov. 30, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:20-cv-62436-RAR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Brinker International, Inc. is an American multinational hospitality industry company that owns Chili's and Maggiano's Little Italy restaurant chains. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Neil D. Kodsi, Esq. Leslie Lagomasino Baum, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 E-mail: neil.kodsi@jacksonlewis.com leslie.baum@jacksonlewis.com CALIFORNIA: Harvest Rock Files Application for Writ of Injunction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Harvest Rock Church, Inc., et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States an emergency application for writ of injunction relief requested before November 29, 2020, in the matter styled HARVEST ROCK CHURCH, INC., HARVEST INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY, INC., itself and on behalf of its member Churches in California, Applicants, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, Respondent, Case No. 20A94. The lawsuit alleges that Governor Newsom's Executive Orders and the State's Public Health Orders regarding COVID-19 impose disparately onerous prohibitions and numerical restrictions on religious gatherings in churches, and even on in-home Bible studies, worship meetings, and life groups. Moreover, the orders purport to dictate the manner in which Plaintiffs may engage in acceptable religious worship by prohibiting singing and chanting where indoor worship is allowed, and by allowing provision and receipt of approved social services by unlimited numbers in the same church buildings where religious worship services are limited numerically or prohibited altogether. The Governor has imposed these restrictions on Plaintiffs while openly celebrating and encouraging mass gatherings for protests. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against houses of worship by restricting the size of religious gatherings while exempting or giving other preferential treatment to comparable nonreligious gatherings occurring inside the same houses of worship or to other comparable nonreligious gatherings occurring externally. (2) Whether this Court's decision in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), issued decades before the First Amendment was incorporated against the States and 60 years before strict scrutiny became the governing standard in First Amendment cases, dictates a separate standard for determining First Amendment liberties in times of declared crisis. (3) Whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and this Court's holding in Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government . . . can force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will" is violated when a State prohibits or forbids upon criminal penalty houses of worship from assembling regardless of the size of the house of worship or the religious doctrine or practice. Applicants Harvest Rock Church, Inc. and Harvest International Ministry, Inc. (collectively "Churches"), hereby move for an emergency writ of injunction before, November 29, 2020 against Governor Newsom's Emergency Proclamation and subsequently issued stay-at-home orders, including the currently operative "Blueprint for a Safer Economy", which establishes a statewide framework of four Tiers with sector-specific restrictions in each tier and imposes an unconstitutionally discriminatory regime that relegates Churches' fundamental right to religious exercise to constitutional orphan status, pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rules 20, 22 and 23 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1651. As a result of the Governor's COVID-19 restrictions on religious worship, Harvest Rock Church has received letters from the Planning and Community Development Department, Code Enforcement Division, for the City of Pasadena and from the Pasadena Office of the City Attorney/City Prosecutor, Criminal Division, threatening up to 1 year in prison, daily criminal charges and $1,000 fines against the pastors, church, governing board, staff, and parishioners, which includes a threat to close the church. Emergency relief is needed now to prevent criminalizing constitutionally protected religious exercise, the suit says. [BN] Plaintiffs-Applicants HARVEST ROCK CHURCH, INC.; HARVEST INTERNATIONAL MINISTRY, INC., itself and on behalf of its member Churches in California are represented by: Mathew D. Staver, Esq. Horatio G. Mihet, Esq. Roger K. Gannam, Esq. Daniel J. Schmid, Esq. LIBERTY COUNSEL P.O. Box 540774 Orlando, FL 32853 Telephone: (407) 875-1776 E-mail: court@LC.org hmihet@LC.org rgannam@LC.org dschmid@LC.org CANADA: Sixties Scoop Survivors Launches Healing Foundation ----------------------------------------------------------- Casey Taylor, writing for NewMarketToday, reports that survivors of the notorious Sixties Scoop have marked a milestone with the ceremonial launch of the Sixties Scoop Healing Foundation. An estimated 20,000 Indigenous children were torn from their homes and placed in mainly non-Indigenous ones during the Sixties Scoop that technically spans from the 1950s to 1980s. The $50-million foundation is part of a class-action settlement with the federal government created to offer aid and to advocate on survivors' behalf. "I don't like using the word 'survivor'," Sally Susan Mathias, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action against Ottawa, said during the ceremony. "But, that is truly what it is to live through trauma and to be able to grow up and come through such hard days." Maggie-Blue Waters, another of the lead-plaintiffs in the class-action suit, was five years old when she was torn from her family. "Before we were scooped, my life was the way it was intended to be," said Waters. "With my family, we had a humble Cree cultural lifestyle, happy and content on the land by the lake." "Then one day in 1962, our lives were systematically shattered." Waters had been in the care of her grandparents while her parents worked at the time she, her siblings, and her cousins were taken. "I was the oldest one in the car that day," said Waters. "I was five and I was frantic - scratching at the window of the moving car and tormented by the terror in my family's faces as the car drove away." "Then I looked to see and hear my cousins and my siblings wailing and wanting to go home." Waters said she made a vow in that moment to bring her family back home, though it would take 29 years for her to find her way back. By that time, her grandparents and father had already died, her mother is considered one of the missing and murdered. "For myself, as a survivor of the Sixties Scoop, I believe our Healing Foundation is designed to bring us back home," said Waters. "Our collaboration of gifts, of skills and of talents can give to us complete healing and restoration." It's a sentiment shared by Mathias who said the foundation is built by, run by, and has the understanding and expertise of survivors. "I'm very relaxed in knowing that there are others who share the same dream," said Mathias. "A waking, living dream that life can be better. We can make it that way." Mathias called the launch of the foundation a cause for celebration. "Not only for myself personally, but a celebration for people all across Canada to be able to say 'look what we can do'." [GN] CARENET INFOMEDIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gabel Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- YVONNE GABEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CARENET - INFOMEDIA GROUP, INC. d/b/a CARENET HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01420 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 13, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Gabel was employed by the Defendant as telenurse. Carenet – Infomedia Group, Inc. d/b/a Carenet Healthcare Services providing outpatient care of a specialized nature with permanent facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. Siegel Law Group PLLC 4925 Greenville, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 - and - Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (281) 572-0727 Facsimile: (281) 572-0728 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and - Charles R. Ash, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com CARPENTER CO: Sanchez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BLANCA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CARPENTER CO. d/b/a E.R. CARPENTER COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RIC2004219, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on December 10, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-02550 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal periods, unpaid rest periods, unpaid minimum wages, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices. Carpenter Co., doing business as E.R. Carpenter Company, Inc., is a producer of comfort cushioning products, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501 Telephone: (310) 315-8200 Facsimile: (310) 315-8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com ksakaue@mcguirewoods.com - and – Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 Facsimile: (415) 844-9922 E-mail: skim@mcguirewoods.com CHICAGO TITLE: Court Narrows Claims in Ovation Finance Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Larry Allan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part Chicago Title's motion to dismiss the case captioned OVATION FINANCE HOLDINGS 2 LLC, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Case No. 19cv2031-LAB (AHG) (S.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs were numerous investors in a lending enterprise which the Complaint calls the ANI Loan Program. The case is related to 19cv1628, SEC v. Champion-Cain, and to 19cv2129, Allred v. Chicago Title. All three cases concern the same lending enterprise. Cris Torres and Gina Champion-Cain have pled guilty in the criminal cases 20cr2114 and 20cr2115, respectively. Defendant Chicago Title filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay the action. It argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to join necessary parties, that their RICO claims are barred under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), and that the Complaint does not state a claim against it. The motion is fully briefed. The Plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking leave to add two new claims, but that motion does not affect the motion to dismiss. The hearing date on that motion is November 23, so briefing on that motion is not due soon. Although the Court is deciding similar motions in Allred, the two complaints are different, and the Court is treating each case separately. In particular, the Complaint in the case is much more robust, and supported by substantial exhibits. The motions to dismiss are different as well. For example, the Defendants in Allred moved to dismiss fraud claims for failure to plead them with particularity, but the motion to dismiss in the case does not raise such an argument. The fact that the Court has made a particular ruling in a related case does not necessarily mean the same ruling will be made in all cases. As to dismissal for failure to join a necessary party, Judge Burns finds that most of the Complaint's allegations describe Kim Funding's financial and other business arrangements with Ovation and Banc of California in facilitating their investment in the lending platform, rather than their involvement with the scheme more generally. The Complaint does not treat either Kim Peterson or Kim Funding as deeply and knowingly involved in any deception. As to Kim Peterson and Kim Funding, Judge Burns finds Chicago Title has not met its burden of showing they are necessary parties. While Champion-Cain is a joint tortfeasor, it does not appear her involvement in the action is necessary either. It appears, however, that ANI will be a necessary party if the receiver's motion for authorization to proceed against Chicago Title is granted. As discussed at the hearing on the receiver's motion, the Court was considering staying actions against Chicago Title, in order to facilitate an orderly disposition of the receiver's actions. Bearing in mind that the case is still in the pleading stage, and that the Court has yet to rule on the receiver's motion, the Judge finds it unnecessary to stay the case at this time. It is likely the Court will rule on the receiver's motion in case 19cv1628 well before ruling on the Plaintiffs' pending motion for leave to amend. Once that happens, the appropriateness of a stay for failure to join ANI will be clearer. Because the case is still in the pleading stage and is likely to remain so for some time, a stay is unnecessary at this time. As to dismissal for failure to state a claim, Judge Burns holds that because the Plaintiffs' two RICO claims are premised on transactions that are actionable as securities fraud, the PSLRA bars them. Although the Plaintiffs are not necessarily estopped by the Court's decisions in related cases, it bears mention that case 19cv1628 represents the SEC's efforts to bring securities fraud claims against Champion-Cain and others in connection with these same transactions. Torres has pled guilty in case 20cr2114 to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and Champion-Cain has pled guilty in case 20cr2115 to (among other things) securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. To treat the Lending Platform investments as something other than securities would be anomalous. Judge Burns also finds that while Banc of California and Ovation may have been commercial lenders vis-à-vis Kim Funding, their understanding was that the escrow accounts would be held in their own names, and they would remain owners of the funds in the accounts. They are not suing on the notes, but for alleged securities fraud by which their funds were drained. Their claims against Chicago Title arise from its involvement in the alleged fraud. While these two Plaintiffs may have been engaged in commercial lending, the Complaint asks that for purposes of the RICO claims they be treated as cheated investors. Even if they were to amend to distinguish their roles as suggested in the opposition, however, it is clear that the overarching scheme as alleged in the Complaint amounted to securities fraud. Their RICO claims would still be subject to the PSLRA bar. Next, the Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss makes more robust allegations of a unity between CTC and CTIC. While the new allegations are not enough to show that their separate existence should be disregarded, they could suggest CTC and CTIC acted in concert, or that one was part of the other. The Complaint needs to make these allegations, however. The Court or either the Defendant should be able to read the Complaint and understand what is being alleged against which the Defendant. If the two are to be treated as one, the Complaint must allege facts showing why, and cannot merely conclude that they were each other's agents, alter egos, joint venturers, or the like. Finally, the Complaint relies on federal question jurisdiction, based on the two RICO claims, and supplemental jurisdiction as to the state law claimwith the dismissal of the two federal claims, however, that jurisdictional basis disappears. While the Court's continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims is discretionary under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c), the Supreme Court has made clear that when federal claims are dismissed before trial, supplemental state law claims should ordinarily be dismissed as well. Based on the foregoing, Judge Burns granted in part the motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' two RICO claims are dismissed without leave to amend. Claims against Chicago Title are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim against it. The Court held that Plaintiffs may amend their motion for leave to amend, updating the proposed complaint to omit RICO claims and to correct pleading defects the Order has identified. The amended motion should use the same briefing date and time. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yywp7f6z from Leagle.com. CHINA XD: Schmitt Claims Stockholders' Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA SCHMITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHINA XD PLASTICS COMPANY, LIMITED, FAITH DAWN LIMITED, FAITH HORIZON, INC., XD ENGINEERING PLASTICS COMPANY LIMITED, JIE HAN, TAYLOR ZHANG, LINYUAN ZHAI, HUIYI CHEN and GUANBAO HUANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06028 (E.D.N.Y., December 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 13(d) and (e), 14(a) and 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged issuance of materially defective proxy materials and Schedule 13Ds and Schedule 13E-3s with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which resulted in the approval of a cash out merger which delivered the totality of the equity of China XD Plastics Company to controlling insiders illegally. Further, the Plaintiff and Class members brought this class action against Director Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell China XD without first taking steps to ensure that the Plaintiff and Class members would obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration through a fair process under the circumstances; and (ii) engineering the merger to benefit China XD's founder Han and the Buyer Group without regard for China XD's public stockholders. Accordingly, this action seeks, inter alia, to enjoin the proposed closing of the merger and rescinding the vote approving the merger. China XD Plastics Company, Limited is a specialty chemical company based in Heilongjiang, China. Faith Dawn Limited is a limited liability company incorporated under the Law of the Cayman Islands in Florence. Faith Horizon, Inc. is a Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Faith Dawn Limited. XD Engineering Plastics Company Limited is a plastics company wholly owned by Jie Han, the founder of China XD Plastics Company, Limited. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action Over 2016 Merger Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the lawsuit related to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC's merger agreement in 2016 remains pending. In connection with the 2016 Merger, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the 2016 Merger. The petitions also alleged that Como 1, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Como 1 either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions sought various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: - Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), - Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), - Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and - L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel, and dismissed the investors in Cleco Partners as defendants, per agreement of the parties. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish were captioned as follows: - Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), - Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and - Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. By operation of the December 2014 order of the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, the Butler, Cashen, and Creative Life Services actions were consolidated into the actions pending in Rapides Parish. In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. The District Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July 2015. The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) voted to approve the 2016 Merger before the Court could consider the plaintiffs' peremptory exceptions. In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively. The fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition and was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. The defendants filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the fourth amended Petition. In September 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action and dismissed all claims asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal. In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal's decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the parties are engaged in discovery in the District Court. In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause of action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On December 21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco Holdings as defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as the only remaining defendants certain former executive officers and independent directors. The District Court denied the defendants' exceptions on January 14, 2019. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited class. On September 7, 2019, the District Court certified a class limited to shareholders who voted against, abstained from voting, or did not vote on the 2016 Merger. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016. Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in Pineville, Louisiana. CN MOTOR: Faces Shak Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- TODD SHAK, as an individual and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. CN MOTOR COMPANY LLC, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 20STCV46721 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 7, 2020) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay minimum wages for all hours worked to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees, failed to authorize and permit all legally required rest periods, failed to pay all earned overtime compensation, failed to provide all legally required meal periods, failed to pay all vacation wages earned at the time of separation from employment, failed to reimburse for all necessary business expenses, failed to furnish with complete, accurate, itemized wage statements, failed to timely pay all final wages, failed to pay all earned wages at least twice during each calendar month, and failed to maintain accurate records. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt sales manager from approximately 2016 until on or about March 13, 2020. CN Motor Company LLC owns and operates Santa Monica Ford, an automotive retailer in Santa Monica, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com COMPASS RECOVERY: Woodall Files FDCPA Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against COMPASS RECOVERY GROUP, LLC. The case is styled as Michael Woodall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPASS RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-12201-IT (D. Mass., Dec. 11, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Compass Recovery Group, LLC -- https://compassrecoverygroup.com/ -- provides a full-service receivables debt collection solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin V.K. Crick, Esq. ROGHTS PROTECTION LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400 Boston, MA 02114 Phone: (844) 574-4487 Fax: (888) 622-3715 Email: k.crick@rightsprotect.com COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- comScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Company and Full Circle Studies, Inc.'s settlement with plaintiffs in the class action litigation over alleged violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act remains subject to court approval. On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary, Full Circle Studies, Inc., received demand letters on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such personal information by embedding advertising software development kits ("SDKs") in applications created or developed by The Walt Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and damages under Massachusetts law. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices and right to privacy statutes. The complaints alleged damages in excess of $5.0 million, with any award to be apportioned among the defendants. On February 26, 2020, the Company and Full Circle reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the complaints in full, with no admission of liability, in return for injunctive relief and payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, to be covered by the Company's insurance. The settlement received preliminary court approval on September 24, 2020; it remains subject to final court approval. comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. CONDUENT INC: ERS Puerto Rico Elec. Power Authority Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Conduent Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority et al v. Conduent Inc. et al On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with the company's statements and alleged omissions regarding its financial guidance and business and operations was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The company moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety. In June 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the claims to proceed. Conduent said, "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company maintains insurance that may cover any costs arising out of this litigation up to the insurance limits, and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions thereof. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of currently recorded reserves." Conduent Incorporated is a business process services company. The Company provides business process services with expertise in transaction-intensive processing, analytics and automation. The company is based in Florham Park, New Jersey. CONTRACT TRANSPORT: Burlaka Files Certiorari Petition in FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Leonid Burlaka, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Leonid Burlaka et al, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Contract Transport Services, LLC, Case No. 20-712. Response is due on December 28, 2020. Petitioners Leonid Burlaka, et al. petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case titled LEONID BURLAKA, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CONTRACT TRANSPORT SERVICES LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-1703. Because the evidence establishes that Plaintiffs were subject to performing spotting duties that comprised one leg of a continuous interstate journey, the district court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED. The question presented is: Are drivers subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Transportation, and therefore exempt under 29 U.S.C. Section 213(b)(1), because some of the products that they moved between two points within a single state were eventually moved out of the state, even though the shipper had not decided on whether to sell the products to an interstate or intrastate customer at the time of the intrastate transport? Petitioners Leonid Burlaka, Timothy Keuken, Travis Frischmann, and Roger Robinson are truck drivers who brought individual, collective, and class action claims against Contract Transport Services (CTS), their former employer, for failing to provide overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires overtime pay for any employee who works more than forty hours in a workweek. The entitlement to overtime pay, however, is not absolute: as relevant here, the statute exempts employees who are subject to the Secretary of Transportation's jurisdiction under the Motor Carrier Act (MCA). The Petitioners asks the Court to take up the issue of the appropriate standard for determining whether a wholly intrastate movement of goods is separate from, or constitutes the first leg of an interstate movement of goods, for the purpose of determining whether drivers who made such intrastate movements are subject to the power of the Secretary of Transportation for establishing qualifications and maximum hours, and is therefore exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act under 29 U.S.C. Section 213(b)(1). [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Leonid Burlaka, et al., are represented by: Jill Marie Hartley, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 1555 N. RiverCenter Drive, Suite 202 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 240-1185 E-mail: jh@previant.com COVIA HOLDINGS: Faces Plagens Suit Over Decline of Share Price -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM PLAGENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JENNIFFER D. DECKARD, MARK E. BARRUS, MICHAEL F. BIEHL, ANDREW D. EICH, RICHARD A. NAVARRE, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-02744 (N.D. Ohio, December 10, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about Covia Holdings Corporation's business, operations, and prospects in order to attract investors and to artificially inflate prices of Covia and/or Fairmount Santrol securities between March 15, 2016 and June 29, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's proprietary value-added proppants were not necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) the Company's revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary value-added proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Company insiders raised this issue, the Defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth about Covia's operations and financial performance was disclosed to the public, the company's share prices continuously declined. On June 29,2020, share prices fell $0.18, or 37.5%, from closing at $0.48, suspending trading June 30, 2020, and resuming trading over-the-counter (OTC) on July 1, 2020 at $0.30, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members purchased Covia and/or Fairmount Santrol securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class period. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com - and – Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com CRODA INC: Faces Class Action Over Altas Point Plant Emission ------------------------------------------------------------- Sophia Schmidt, writing for Delaware Public Media, reports that a controversial chemical plant in New Castle has violated its air pollution limits again. A plant at the Croda facility in New Castle leaked massive amounts of the explosive and carcinogenic chemical ethylene oxide in 2018, causing a temporary shutdown of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The company's New Castle facility is also the subject of a federal chemical exposure suit filed this year. State environmental regulators found additional violations at the plant this fall. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) learned after a stack test in September that Croda had exceeded its annual emission limit for ethylene oxide at an air pollution scrubber, and that the scrubber had failed to reduce volatile organic compound emissions by at least 95 percent. Croda also routed an unpermitted source into an air pollution scrubber and operated an unpermitted source of ethylene oxide at a part of the plant known as a hotwell, which environmental regulators say condenses vapors from the purification and distillation of crude ethylene glycol. State Representative Larry Lambert has been an outspoken critic of Croda since the 2018 leak. "At this point, we're looking at a full-blown pattern," Lambert said Friday, after learning about the latest violations. "It appears that it may very well be how they conduct business." Lambert sees this as the last strike. "This is really the last time that it's really acceptable to have any kind of violations like this," he said. "I'm looking forward to DNREC and the state of Delaware taking the necessary steps to ensure that this pattern doesn't continue." DNREC says the ethylene oxide plant has not operated since the date of the test. DNREC included several action items in the Notice of Violations hand delivered to Croda Nov. 11. The state agency is requiring Croda to obtain a permit for the unpermitted equipment and submit documentation of emissions "for all chemical species" by mid-January. DNREC has advised Croda that further operation of the ethylene oxide plant at the New Castle facility for a purpose other than demonstrating compliance with permit limits would be viewed as a "flagrant violation." DNREC was set to hold a virtual information session on the "path forward" for the plant on Nov. 19. The federal lawsuit filed against Croda in August is over the company's emissions of ethylene oxide in New Castle. The plaintiff, New Castle County resident Catherine Baker, is seeking class-action status. She claims residents near Croda's Altas Point facility along Route 9 are subject to increased risk of illness as a result of exposure to the chemical over decades. She is seeking monetary damages, including the cost of medical monitoring. Croda is attempting to get the case dismissed. The suit came after members of Delaware's Congressional Delegation urged the EPA to alert New Castle-area residents of the health risks of exposure to ethylene oxide from Croda, following an EPA Inspector General report flagging the issue this spring. [GN] CVS HEALTH: Continues to Defend LTC Business Unit-Related Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative class action suits related to the Company's LTC business unit, which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019. Between February and August 2019, six class action complaints were filed by putative plaintiffs against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors: Anarkat v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island); Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et. al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); Cambria Co. Employees Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (New York Supreme Court); Freundlich v. CVS Health Corp., et al. (Rhode Island Superior Court); and In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Act Litigation (formerly captioned Waterford Twp. Police & Fire Retirement Sys. v. CVS Health Corp., et al.) (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island). The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations relating to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit, which allegedly injured investors who acquired CVS Health securities between February 9, 2016 and February 20, 2019. The Labourers' Pension Fund and Cambria County cases have been consolidated into a single action based on the Labourers' Pension Fund complaint. The Freundlich and City of Warren cases have been consolidated into In re CVS Health Corp. Securities Litigation and stayed in favor of the earlier-filed Anarkat and Labourers' Pension Fund cases. The Company is defending itself against these claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court granted the parties' motion to consolidate Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al. and Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al. and renamed it as In re Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). In re Direct Purchaser EpiPen Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.) was filed in March 2020 against Caremark, other PBMs and the manufacturer of EpiPen products and their authorized generics on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products. The complaint alleges violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and claims that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturer and PBMs caused the direct purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products. A nearly identical case was separately filed in the same court (Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.). The court granted a motion to consolidate the two complaints. The Company is defending itself against these claims. CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Direct Purchaser Insulin Pricing Litigation (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). This putative class action (originally captioned as Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., et al.) was filed in March 2020 against CVS Caremark Corporation, other pharmacy benefit managements (PBMs) and the manufacturers of analog insulin products on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products. The complaint alleges violations of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and claims that rebate agreements between the drug manufacturers and PBMs caused the direct purchasers to pay inflated prices for these drug products. Two nearly identical cases were separately filed in the same court (FWK Holdings, LLC v. Novo Nordisk, et al. and Value Drug Company v. Eli Lilly & Co., et al.). The court granted a motion to consolidate all three complaints. The Company is defending itself against these claims. CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: EpiPen ERISA Litigation Junked ------------------------------------------ CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation, has been dismissed, following denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). This putative class action was filed against the Company and other PBMs in June 2017 on behalf of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managements(PBMs) are ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPens through the process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer Mylan. This case was consolidated with a similar matter and was proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. In October 2020, the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice following denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. CVS HEALTH: Radcliffe and Flaim Class Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits entitled, Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc., et al. In August and September 2020, two Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Connecticut against CVS Health Corp., Aetna Inc., and several current and former executives, directors and/or members of Aetna's Compensation and Talent Management Committee: Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc., et al. The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action premised on allegations that the defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to participants in the Aetna 401(k) plan's investment in company stock between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses related to the performance of the Company's LTC business unit. The Company also received a related document request pursuant to ERISA Section 104(b). The Company is evaluating these matters. CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. DESJARDINS FINANCIAL: Langlois Lawyers Discuss Ruling in Asselin ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ariane-Sophie Blais, Esq. -- ariane-sophie.blais@langlois.ca -- Sandra Desjardins, Esq. -- sandra.desjardins@langlois.ca -- Vincent De L'Etoile, Esq. -- vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- Sean Griffin, Esq., and Sophie Perreault, Esq., of Langlois lawyers, LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on October 30, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc. v. Asselin (the "Asselin decision"). Ever since leave to appeal was granted in June 2019,2 practitioners and litigants have been kept in suspense, anticipating a potential amendment to the analytical framework of the criteria for authorization of a class action in Quebec. However, far from liberalizing or restricting the interpretation and application of the authorization criteria in Article 575 of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), the Asselin decision maintains the status quo with respect to the legal framework for authorizing a class action in Quebec. The Court reiterated the position and the principles it developed in Infineon,3 Vivendi,4 and Oratoire Saint-Joseph,5 which form the jurisprudential basis for this critical procedural stage, without modifying the applicable law. I. CONTEXT In 2011, the plaintiff moved to authorize a class action against the defendants with respect to principal-protected investment vehicles that, as a result of the 2008 financial crisis and the collapse of the asset-backed commercial paper ("ABCP") market, did not ultimately generate any returns, though investors were able to recover the value of their original investment. Alleging that the investment vehicles were offered to the public and presented to investors as providing an attractive return potential, the applicant contends that one of the defendants is contractually liable for making false representations because it failed to disclose the "risk" associated with the investment, and that the other defendant is extracontractually liable for designing flawed investment vehicles and for mismanaging the funds. In 2016, the Superior Court dismissed the proposed class action having found no contractual relationship with one of the defendants, as well as insufficient allegations to justify a cause of action against it; and the implausibility of the proposed syllogism against the other in light of the allegations in the motion and not permitting to engage its extracontractual liability.6 Furthermore, since the proposed action is based on representations made at the time that the investment vehicles in dispute were being marketed, the authorization judge concluded that the assessment of such a cause of action does not lend itself to adjudication by way of a class action. The Court of Appeal,7 in a much-publicized decision, overturned the Superior Court's judgment and authorized the class action against the defendants. In its decision, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the flexible, liberal, and generous approach to the authorization conditions to facilitate access to justice, a class action being a vehicle for achieving the twin goals of deterrence and victim compensation. The Court also urged authorization judges to exercise caution when weighing evidence at the authorization stage and indicated that one must be able to "read between the lines" when considering allegations that are imperfect, but which true meaning is nonetheless clear. The Court of Appeal concluded that the motion, when properly assessed and understood, alleges a generalized and systematic breach of the duty to inform in the sale of investment vehicles to all class members, giving rise to the contractual liability of one defendant, as well as the extracontractual liability of the other defendant with respect to the design and management of the investments in dispute. Accordingly, the defendants' liability can be debated on a common basis and will depend on the merits of the case. II. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, written by Justice Kasirer, upheld the authorization to institute the class action against the defendants on essentially the same grounds as those of the Quebec Court of Appeal. The Asselin decision reaffirms the flexible, liberal, and generous approach to the authorization criteria in order to achieve the twin goals of deterrence and victim compensation and access to justice. The decision also reaffirms that the legal threshold for authorization to institute a class action in Quebec is a low one. A. Reminders from the Asselin Decision In keeping with the Court's case law, and without modifying the interpretation and application of the authorization criteria under Article 575 CCP, the Asselin decision contains some useful reminders. 1. The standard for appellate intervention From the outset, the majority opinion reiterates that a judgment dismissing a class action is entitled to deference on appeal, particularly because of the discretionary nature of authorization judges' decisions. However, if the motion judge errs in analyzing certain aspects of the authorization conditions, misunderstands the proposed legal syllogism, or assumes the role of arbiter of the facts, any of these may constitute a reviewable error warranting appellate intervention. 2. What it means to "read between the lines" The Court of Appeal's use of this expression, in this case, created considerable controversy. Refusing to see this as a change in the law or a loosening of authorization criteria, the majority opinion states that this figurative or metaphorical expression was intended as a warning against the excesses of literalism in the analysis of an application for authorization to institute a class action, and not an invitation to search for allegations that are missing from the application. Without relieving the plaintiff of its burden of demonstration and without inventing wording nout found in the pleadings, the following measures are appropriate for a motion judge to assess an application for authorization: a. The judge may draw inferences or presumptions from the allegations in the application to establish the existence of an arguable case; b. Conversely, no inference may be drawn in the complete absence of allegations, nor may the authorization judge add to the text or read into the application something that is not written therein; and c. The applicant must advance facts that are specific enough to allow the legal syllogism to be considered, but it is not necessary to provide step-by-step details of the legal argument to be made in the submissions on the merits of the case. Thus, the analytical approach at the authorization stage makes it possible to overlook certain defects of form in order to understand the "full message" of the allegations in the application, based on the wording therein. 3. Demonstration of an arguable case (Article 575(2) CCP) As we know, the onus on the plaintiff at the authorization stage is simply to establish an "arguable case" in light of the facts and the applicable law. At the authorization stage, pure questions of law may be resolved by the court if the outcome of the proposed action depends on its doing so. Otherwise, when the cause of action is dependent on the assessment of facts, the authorization judge cannot rule on the merits of the conclusions in light of the alleged facts; the screening function is merely to ensure that frivolous or unsustainable claims are dismissed, so that the parties are not subjected to unnecessary litigation. The corollary of this flexible approach is that the plaintiff does not have the burden of proving each element of the syllogism according to the usual civil standard. A class action may be authorized without evidence on a balance of probabilities, as long as it is supported by "some evidence." In each case, to assess the sufficiency of the evidence and the allegations, an authorization judge must consider the particular features of the context and what would ultimately have to be proved at trial. 4. The existence of identical, similar, or related questions of law or fact (Article 575(1) CCP) The case law calls for a flexible approach to the common interest that must exist among the class. It follows that the fact that the situation of all members of the class are not perfectly identical does not mean that commonality does not exist or is not uniform; a class action may be authorized as long as certain issues are common to all members of the group. The majority opinion specifically reiterates that: a. The threshold to establish the existence of common issues at the authorization stage is low; b. Unlike other provinces, the CCP does not require common issues to predominate over individual issues. Rather, a single common issue is sufficient as long as it advances the litigation in a manner that is not insignificant; and c. The issue must be common to the class members, but need not call for a common answer. Thus, the fact that some individual issues remain and may need to be analyzed at the end of the class action is not an obstacle to satisfying this authorization criterion. B. The outcome of the application in this case Based on the principle that authorization to institute a class action must be granted once the four criteria of Article 575 CCP have been met, because the Court has no residual discretion to deny authorization on the ground that the action would not be the most appropriate procedural vehicle, and since any doubt must weigh in favour of continuing the proceedings, the Supreme Court of Canada has authorized the institution of the class action in this case. Despite the criticisms levelled against the drafting of the motion, which was acknowledged to be lacking in elegance, and refusing to see in it a cause of action based on representations made individually to each class members at the time of their investment in the financial vehicles in dispute, the Court was satisfied that the motion was sufficient to establish an arguable case against the defendants, and that this case lends itself to adjudication by way of a class action, taking into account the legal framework relating to the causes of action and the substance of the allegations. Thus, the defences available to the defendants relating to the adequacy of the information communicated to investors, the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on returns, and the scope of a judicial release with respect to the ABCP market and other markets will have to be debated and examined at trial. C. Partial dissent For her part, Justice Cote, whose reasons are supported by Justices Moldaver and Rowe, would have dismissed the authorization to institute a class action with respect to the alleged breach of the duty to inform by one of the defendants, and would have authorized the class action against the other defendant with respect to the alleged faults in the design and management of the investments, but only with respect to the claim for compensatory damages, excluding punitive damages. Although in certain circumstances, a class action alleging breaches of the duty to inform by financial advisers may be possible, the allegations in the application were insufficient in this case. Since the analysis of the duty to inform would normally require an individual examination of each member's particular circumstances, an allegation establishing the presence of a breach that is systemic in nature would have been required to satisfy the requirements of Article 575(1) CCP. With respect to the alleged faults in the design and management of the investments by the other defendant, Justice Cote also confirmed the Court of Appeal's decision that the four criteria of Article 575 CCP are met with respect to the claim for compensatory damages only. Indeed, with respect to the claim for punitive damages, Justice Cote noted that an authorization judge may interpret a pure question of law at this stage if it does not require the analysis of evidence. From the perspective of judicial economy and proportionality, if the issue can be decided at this stage, it is not advisable to defer the matter to the trial on the merits. In the case at bar, the plan of arrangement for the restructuring of the ABCP market, approved by the courts, provided for a release in favour of several financial institutions, including the defendants. Contrary to the findings of the majority, Justice Cote concluded that the ABCP release could be construed without evidence being adduced at this stage, and therefore should have precluded any claim for punitive damages in this case. III. CONCLUSION As the Supreme Court of Canada rightly points out, the authorization to institute a class action is only a preliminary decision that can be modified during the trial and does not in any way prejudge the outcome of the litigation, nor does it prejudice the rights of the defendant. Such is the case in Asselin, a decision rendered at the authorization stage of a class action and which content and comments are based on a low threshold of proof, derived from allegations that are considered generously and without considering the required evidence through the applicable burden for the actual determination of rights. [GN] DIRECT ENERGY: Faces Lindenbaum Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTA LINDENBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No. : 1:20-cv-02731-DCN (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff brings this class action to: (1) stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls using "an artificial or prerecorded voice" to the residential landline telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent; (2) stop the Defendants from calling consumers who are registered on the National Do Not Call Registry and (3) obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Direct Energy is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice Program, offering electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam T. Savett, Esq. Savett Law Offices LLC 2764 Carole Lane Allentown, PA 18104 Telephone: (610) 621-4550 Facsimile: (610) 978-2970 E-mail: adam@savettlaw.com DIRECTV: 9th Cir. Judge Bennett Tries to Reverse Ruling in Revitch ------------------------------------------------------------------ People for the American Way reports that Trump Ninth Circuit judge Mark Bennett tried to reverse a district court and rule that claims that DIRECTV made illegal telemarketing calls had to be arbitrated individually and could not form the basis of a class action against the corporation. Bennett's dissent relied on a 2-1 ruling to that effect by Trump judge Rushing in the Fourth Circuit. The majority, including a judge nominated by President Reagan, rejected Bennett's view and affirmed the district court in its September 2020 decision in Revitch v DIRECTV. In 2018, Jeremy Revitch filed a class action suit against DIRECTV, contending that the company had violated federal law by subjecting him and many others to "multiple telephone calls" to their cellphones trying to push them to subscribe. Revitch contended that he had no previous contact with the company and "certainly did not give DIRECTV permission to flood his cell phone with robocalls." Seven years earlier, Revitch had become an AT&T Mobility cellphone customer. The contract he signed included a clause agreeing to arbitrate all claims with AT&T Mobility and its "affiliates." Four years after the contract was signed, DIRECTV was acquired by AT&T Mobility's parent company, AT&T Inc., so DIRECTV filed a motion to compel Revitch to arbitrate his individual claim, and to dismiss the class action complaint, because it had become an AT&T "affiliate." In a 27-page opinion, the district court rejected DIRECTV's motion, concluding that the Revitch-AT&T Mobility contract clearly "did not reflect an intent to arbitrate the claim" against DIRECTV, which was not an AT&T affiliate until four years after the contract was signed. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In a 2-1 opinion by Reagan nominee Diarmuid O'Scannlain, the appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling. The majority explained that under California law, looking to the "reasonable expectations" of the parties at the time of the contract, there was no valid agreement to arbitrate between DIRECTV and Revitch since DIRECTV was not an affiliate of AT&T Mobility at the time the agreement was signed. The majority specifically rejected the contrary opinion by Trump judge Rushing of the Fourth Circuit, noting that Rushing's opinion would improperly require consumers to arbitrate "any and all disputes with (yet-unknown) corporate entities that might later become affiliated with the service provider," and that this would be so even where neither the later-affiliated entity (in this case DIRECTV) nor the dispute "bear any relation to the services provided under the initial agreement." Judge O'Scannlain also pointed out that DIRECTV's motion should be denied under the express language of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), because the dispute did not "arise out of" the original contract with AT&T Mobility, as required by the FAA. Trump judge Bennett dissented. He relied on arguments similar to those in Trump judge Rushing's decision and his interpretation of the language of the arbitration clause itself. He claimed that the Supreme Court's decision in the Lamps Plus case dictated that if there were any ambiguities about the scope of arbitration, they must be resolved "in favor of arbitration," and that the district court's decision should be reversed. As the majority explained, however, Lamps Plus was a limited ruling, holding only that ambiguous terns in a contract should be interpreted in favor of arbitration when the ambiguity is used to "impose class arbitration in the absence of the parties' consent." In contrast, the majority went on, the court was simply determining that the "mutual intent" of the parties based on their "reasonable expectations at the time of the contract" did not support the conclusion that all disputes between Revitch and all future affiliates of AT&T were intended to be arbitrated, even if the subject had nothing to do with the original contract. The majority recognized that its decision created a "circuit split" on the issue of the scope of the arbitration cause in contracts like the AT&T Mobility agreement, which the Supreme Court may well decide to resolve. It is unfortunately all too possible that the Court, which now includes three Trump justices, will adopt the same pro-corporate, anti-consumer interpretation that Trump judges Bennett and Rushing have urged. For now, at least, Bennett's views are in the minority in the Ninth Circuit, and Revitch can proceed with his class action to obtain broad relief against the illegal telemarketing by DIRECTV. [GN] DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that SCANA Corporation continues to defend an employment class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this case as a class action. In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined the case filed August 2017. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the decision to stop construction at the NND Project. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for 100% of the NND Project. In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises, Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and Santee Cooper. The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. These cases are pending. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINION ENERGY: Issues $322MM Shares to Satisfy Obligation ----------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that it issued $322 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy its obligation under the settlement agreement with Santee Cooper ratepayers, including interest charges. Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation was completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger Approval Order was issued by the South Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018. In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case). The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for past or future costs of the NND Project. In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including as additional named defendants, including certain then current and former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC, which was denied. In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to stay its cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial of the underlying case. In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In December 2019, the plaintiffs and Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to state court. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case. The settlement agreement provides that Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper will establish a fund for the benefit of class members in the amount of $520 million, of which Dominion Energy's portion is $320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock. Also in March 2020, the court granted preliminary approval for the settlement agreement. In July 2020, the court issued a final approval of the settlement agreement. In September 2020, Dominion Energy issued $322 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock to satisfy its obligation under the settlement agreement, including interest charges. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINION ENERGY: RICO-Linked Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action suit alleging violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), has been dismissed. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation, Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC and certain former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina). The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO and conspired to violate RICO by fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds. The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and their officers. In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case. This case was dismissed as part of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Appeal on Securities Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that SCANA Corporation filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on the District Court's denial of its motion to intervene. Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA was completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA Merger Approval Order was issued by the South Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018. In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA, Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County, South Carolina. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin and/or rescind the merger. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the Metzler Lawsuit). The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren Lawsuit. In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding the case to state court. In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated substantially similar allegations to those in the City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable fraud claim. In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a motion to intervene, which was denied in August 2020. In September 2020, SCANA filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. This case is pending. Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc., incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Flores Employment Class Suit Removed to D. Nevada ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled EMMANUEL FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-20-809599-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark, State of Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on December 10, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02233-KJD-EJY to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Revised Statutes including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to timely pay all wages due and owing. Domino's Pizza LLC is an American multinational pizza restaurant chain based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq. Amy L. Thompson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300 Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937 Telephone: (702) 862-8800 Facsimile: (702) 862-8811 E-mail: mpaek@littler.com athompson@littler.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: Appeal on Class Action's Dismissal Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the appeal on the order of dismissal in the purported class action suit filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, is pending. On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018. The Company moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety, and on June 2, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion, dismissing all claims and entering judgment in the Company's favor. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal remains pending. DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology services and solutions primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. DXC TECHNOLOGY: California Securities Class Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class suits in California that alleged false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. On August 20, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. On September 16, 2019, a substantially similar purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. On November 8, 2019, a third purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, directors of the Company, and a former officer of the Company, among other defendants. The third lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff and re-filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara on November 26, 2019, and thereafter was consolidated with the earlier-filed action in the same court on December 10, 2019. The California lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and are premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's prospects and expected performance. The plaintiff in the federal action filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2020. The putative class of plaintiffs in these cases includes all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the April 2017 transaction that formed DXC. On July 15, 2020, the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, denied the Company's motion to stay the state court case but extended the Company's deadline to seek dismissal of the state action, until after a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss the federal action. On July 27, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Company's motion to dismiss the federal action. The Court's order permitted plaintiffs to amend and refile their complaint within 60 days, and on September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company plans to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides information technology services and solutions primarily in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. EAGLE BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix New York Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Eagle Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit filed before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is still pending. On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its current and former President and Chief Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and July 17, 2019. On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel. The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports and other public statements and disclosures contained materially false or misleading statements about, among other things, the effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure of increased legal expenses associated with certain government investigations involving the Company. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims asserted. On April 2, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on June 15, 2020, the defendants filed their reply brief. Briefing on the defendants' motion is now complete, and the motion is under consideration by the court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services primarily in the United States. It accepts business and personal checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment sweep accounts; and time deposits. Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. EIDOS THERAPEUTICS: Andrews & Springer Probes for Potential Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------ bizjournals.com reports that Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors of Eidos Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: EIDX) ("Eidos" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to BridgeBio Pharma, Inc. ("BridgeBio"), which owns and controls over 63% of Eidos. The two parties have announced that they reached an agreement in principle pursuant to which BridgeBio will acquire Eidos. As a result of the merger, Eidos shareholders are only anticipated to receive either 1.85 shares of BridgeBio common stock or $73.26 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Eidos. Andrews & Springer's investigation so far has revealed that the consideration Eidos shareholders are expected to receive is inadequate. Our Firm's investigation so far has discovered that the process leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to have significant conflicts of interest, thus making the process and consideration unfair. Andrews & Springer is also investigating whether the Eidos directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately shop the company and maximize shareholder value. If you own shares of Eidos and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/eidos-merger-class-action-investigation/ or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney Advertising. [GN] EL PASO CTY., CO: Weikert Balks at Lack of COVID-19 Safety Measures ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Weikert, Jennifer Hermanns, Terrence Lacey, Sean Nelson, Jean-Joseph Le Chiffre, and Gilbert Trujillo, on their own and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. BILL ELDER, Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:20-cv-03646 (D. Colo., Dec. 13, 2020), is brought for relief from conditions of confinement that violate their rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article II Sections 20 and 25 of the Colorado Constitution with regard to COVID-19 spreading in the Defendant's jail due to reckless negligence. While COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in Defendant's jail and ravishing the population gripped by fear and suffering, jail staff have told people incarcerated there begging for help: "we're just going to let the virus run its course." This callous statement sums up the policy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office (EPSO) regarding the novel coronavirus ("COVID-19" or "virus"). Rather than fulfill his constitutional duty to protect and care for those detained in the jail through mask provision and enforcement, intake and separation protocols, careful monitoring and treatment, and other proven measures, Defendant Elder and the EPSO have chosen to let COVID-19 "run its course" and have its way with this highly-vulnerable population. While communities across America buckled down on strict mask compliance and isolation protocols over the summer and fall of 2020—especially in crowded residential settings like jails -- the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center (CJC or "jail") failed to require or even distribute masks to all inmates. Infection blossomed in these fertile viral conditions. By October, the jail found itself in the midst of a massive outbreak so out of control that the Defendant called the National Guard for assistance testing the population. By November 8, the jail's Website confirmed that at least 859 inmates in the jail, out of a population of approximately 1,200, had tested positive for the coronavirus, with 73 staff members testing positive on November 9. Despite this mammoth, preventable outbreak, Defendant Elder continues to fail to meet his constitutional obligations in two overarching respects discussed in greater detail herein: (1) he is failing to implement adequate protective measures to prevent the spread of COVID 19, and (2) he is failing to ensure adequate evaluation, monitoring, and treatment of symptomatic inmates confirmed or suspected positive for COVID-19. As a result of Defendant Elder's constitutionally-deficient practices and policies, the Plaintiffs are subjected to an unjustifiable risk of substantial harm to their health and even to their lives. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all current and future detainees and prisoners in the jail, seek prospective relief to protect their health, their lives, and their state and federal constitutional rights, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are detained pretrial in the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center. Bill Elder is the Sheriff of El Paso County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel D. Williams, Esq. HUTCHINSON BLACK AND COOK, LLC 921 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302 Phone: (303) 442-6514 Email: Williams@hbcboulder.com - and - David G. Maxted, Esq. MAXTED LAW LLC 1543 Champa Street Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (720) 717-0877 Fax: (720) 500-1251 Email: dave@maxtedlaw.com - and - Jamie Hughes Hubbard, Esq. STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD LLC 1652 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: (720) 689-8909 Email: hubbard@sslhlaw.com - and - Mark Silverstein, Esq. Sara Neel, Esq. Arielle Herzberg, Esq. Asma Kadri Keeler, Esq. Anna I. Kurtz, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF COLORADO 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 350 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (720) 402-3114 Email: msilverstein@aclu-co.org sneel@aclu-co.org akeeler@aclu-co.org aherzberg@aclu-co ELANCO ANIMAL: Hunter Securities Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. On May 20, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Elanco, Jeffrey Simmons and Todd Young. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's supply chain, inventory, revenue and projections. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco securities between January 10, 2020 and May 6, 2020. On September 3, 2020, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. The deadline for the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint is November 9, 2020. Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless, and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the ultimate resolution cannot be predicted." Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana, the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. ELANCO ANIMAL: Safron Capital Corporation Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Elanco Animal Health Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. On October 16, 2020, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Safron Capital Corporation v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., et al. was filed in the Marion Superior Court of Indiana against Elanco, certain executives, and other individuals. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that Elanco and certain of its executives made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain facts about Elanco's relationships with third-party distributors and revenue attributable to those distributors within the registration statement on Form S-3/ASR dated January 21, 2020 and accompanying prospectus on Form 424B5 issued in connection with Elanco's secondary public offering that closed on or about January 27, 2020. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of Elanco securities pursuant to the secondary public offering. Elanco said, "We believe the claims made in the case are meritless, and we intend to vigorously defend our position. The process of resolving these matters is inherently uncertain and may develop over an extended period of time; therefore, at this time, the ultimate resolution cannot be predicted." Founded in 1954 as part of Eli Lilly and Company, Elanco Animal Health Incorporated is a premier animal health company that innovates, develops, manufactures and markets products for companion and food animals. Headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana, the company is the fourth largest animal health company in the world, with revenue of $3,071.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Class Suit Related to TFI Operations ----------------------------------------------------------- Elevate Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is facing a class action suit related to the operations of Think Finance, Inc. prior to and immediately after the 2014 spin-off. A class action lawsuit against Elevate was filed on August 17, 2020 in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of usurious interest and aiding and abetting various racketeering activities related to the operations of TFI prior to and immediately after the 2014 spin-off. Elevate views this lawsuit as without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position. Elevate Credit, Inc. provides online credit solutions to consumers and banks in the United States and the United Kingdom who are not well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas. ERNST & YOUNG: Wirecard Investors File Suit Over Negligence ----------------------------------------------------------- Simon Goodley, writing for The Guardian, reports that a prominent anti-corruption campaign group is calling on the government to ban EY from bidding on public contracts for three years, accusing the big four accounting and consultancy group of "recurring professional misconduct". Spotlight on Corruption has written to the Crown Procurement Service asking it to examine if business should be awarded to the firm, which has been embarrassed by its involvement in a string of corporate collapses and court judgments. The accounting group is currently being investigated by the UK's Financial Reporting Council for its audits of the private hospital operator NMC Health and the investment firm London Capital Finance, which both collapsed amid claims of fraud. It has also played a notable role in a series of scandals regarding overseas contracts. The company said it strongly disputed "the characterisation of EY" by the campaign group. Spotlight on Corruption's letter stated: "EY's serious and recurring professional misconduct amounts to sufficient grounds to review whether a discretionary exclusion under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 should apply. "It should also trigger proper consideration of whether the firm is, as a result, a ‘high-risk' supplier as defined in the government's Strategic Supplier Risk Management Policy, and whether it can be considered a reliable contractor." Other examples of EY's alleged misconduct cited by the campaign group included: -- An EY whistleblower awarded $10.8m (£8.6m) in damages in April 2020 after being forced out of his job following his claims of misconduct during an audit of a Dubai gold refiner. The metals company had been silver-coating gold to avoid export restrictions and the high court in London ruled that EY had repeatedly breached the code of ethics -- In October 2020, the Spanish audit regulator ICAC fined EY almost EUR800,00 (GBP720,000) for "serious violations" of Spain's auditing laws during the course of its 2015 audit of the financial statements of Bankia, one of Spain's largest banks. ICAC's ruling banned EY from auditing Bankia's accounts for the next three years -- In Germany, hundreds of Wirecard investors are involved in class action lawsuits against EY for its supposed negligence in failing to uncover a huge alleged fraud by the company's executives. Spotlight on Corruption said that disbarring firms from public contracts is "increasingly recognised globally as an effective tool to protect the integrity of public contracting and prevent corruption and fraud", although it said the rules are very rarely used in the UK. [GN] ESSENTIAL UTILITIES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Over Water Advisory ------------------------------------------------------------------ Essential Utilities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit related to the "do not consume" water advisory. During a portion of 2019, the Company initiated a do not consume advisory for some of its water customers in one division served by the Company's Illinois subsidiary. Although the Company had determined that it is reasonably possible that a fine or penalty may be incurred, it cannot estimate the possible range of loss at this time and no liability has been accrued for these future costs. In addition, on September 3, 2019, two individuals, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, commenced an action against the Company's Illinois subsidiary in the State court in Will County, Illinois related to this do not consume advisory. The complaint seeks class action certification, attorney's fees, and "damages, including, but not limited to, out of pocket damages, and discomfort, aggravation, and annoyance" based upon the water provided by the Company's subsidiary to a discrete service area in University Park Illinois. The complaint contains allegations of damages as a result of supplied water that exceeded the standards established by the federal Lead and Copper Rule. The complaint is in the discovery phase and class certification has not been granted. The Company plans to vigorously defend against this claim. A claim for the expenses incurred related to such claim was submitted to the Company's insurance carrier for potential recovery of a portion of these costs, and on August 3, 2020, the Company received $2,874 in insurance proceeds. The Company continues to assess the potential loss contingency on this matter. Essential said, "While the final outcome of this claim cannot be predicted with certainty, and unfavorable outcomes could negatively impact the Company, at this time in the opinion of management, the final resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Essential Utilities, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for regulated utilities providing water, wastewater, or natural gas services to what we estimate to be almost five million people in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, Indiana, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky under the Aqua and Peoples brands. EVERQUOTE INC: Runyon TCPA Putative Class Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative, statewide (Colorado) class action lawsuit captioned Scott M. Runyon v EverQuote, Inc., has been dismissed. On April 29, 2020, EverQuote was named as a defendant in a putative, statewide class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado captioned Scott M. Runyon v EverQuote, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited marketing calls to his cellphone and those of other Colorado residents using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent. Plaintiff sought, among other forms of relief, statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation and an order enjoining future violations. Plaintiff also asserted an individual claim against the Company for invasion of privacy arising out of the same calls to his cellphone and a claim for unspecified damages. The Company believed Plaintiff's claims lacked merit. On July 23, 2020, the U.S. District Court granted a stay pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Case No. 19-511. In October 2020 the case was resolved on an individual basis for an immaterial amount, with EverQuote denying any wrongdoing, and the Company expects the case will be dismissed in November 2020. EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. EVERQUOTE INC: Scavo TCPA Putative Class Suit Tossed ---------------------------------------------------- EverQuote, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative, nationwide class action captioned Carol Scavo v. EverQuote, Inc., has been dismissed. On July 30, 2020, EverQuote was named as a defendant in a putative, nationwide class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania captioned Carol Scavo v. EverQuote, Inc. The complaint alleged that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text message advertisements to her cellphone and those of other United States residents using an automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent. Plaintiff sought, among other forms of relief, statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation and an order enjoining future violations. The Company believed Plaintiff's claims lacked merit. The case was resolved on an individual basis for an immaterial amount, with EverQuote denying any wrongdoing, and was dismissed pursuant to the settlement in October 2020. EverQuote, Inc. operates a leading online marketplace for insurance shopping, connecting consumers with insurance providers. The company's goal is to reshape insurance shopping for consumers and improve the way insurance providers, which the company views as including both carriers and agents, attract and connect with customers shopping for insurance. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, is pending. On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, alleges that the Company's executives made false or misleading statements regarding its business with Passport. A second amended complaint, which was substantially similar to the amended complaint, was filed on June 8, 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in response on June 22, 2020 and the briefing was completed on July 17, 2020; the parties are now waiting for the court's decision. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, PSLRA, all discovery in the case is stayed until the motion to dismiss is decided upon by the court. Evolent said, "Based on the Company's investigation so far, we believe the case has little legal or factual merit. However, the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at this early stage, the Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC, provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Services and True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Exela Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Bo Shen. On March 23, 2020, the Plaintiff, Bo Shen, filed a putative class action against the Company, Ronald Cogburn, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and James Reynolds, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff claims to be a current holder of 4,000 shares of Company stock, purchased on October 4, 2019 at $1.34/share. Plaintiff asserts two claims covering the purported class period of March 16, 2018 to March 16, 2020: (1) a violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against all defendants; and (2) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Cogburn and Mr. Reynolds. The allegations stem from the Company's press release, dated March 16, 2020 (announcing the postponement of the earnings call and delay in filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019), and press release and related SEC filings, dated March 17, 2020 (announcing its intent to restate its financial statements for 2017, 2018 and interim periods through September 30, 2019). Exela said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it is not practicable to render an opinion about whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or remote with respect to this matter; however, the Company has moved to dismiss the case and believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously assert them." Exela Technologies, Inc. provides transaction processing solutions and enterprise information management services worldwide. The company is based in Irving, Texas. FACEBOOK INC: Sherman Sues Over Social Media Market Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------ VICKIE SHERMAN, LEZAH NEVILLE-MARRS, KATHERINE LOOPERS and JARRED JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, Case No. 5:20-cv-08721 (N.D. Ca., Dec. 9, 2020) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant for equitable relief and treble damages under the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, Facebook's sites (including Instagram) account for 75% of all user time spent on social networks, and Facebook.com captures roughly 50% of the billions spent annually on digital display advertising. Facebook allegedly collects monopoly rents, manages the flow of information to most of the nation, and engages in virtually unlimited surveillance, and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. The Company's weaponization of user data and its strategy to "acquire, copy, or kill" competitors have been wildly successful at the expense of consumers. Thus, Facebook's anti-competitive scheme has lessened, if not eliminated, competition and harmed consumers. Further, Facebook took consumers' data without providing adequate compensation to its users (i.e., the members of the putative class in this action) leading to antitrust injury. Through its deception and the acquisitions enabled by such deception, Facebook fought for at least a decade to avoid competition on the merits in the social networks market. As a result, users receive a lower quality product for their data than they would receive in a competitive market. Facebook has engaged in a long-term, integrated, anticompetitive strategy of half-truths about its privacy policies, exclusionary application programming interface manipulation, and anticompetitive acquisitions of nascent competitors that led to its current dominance of a market in which it now wields significant power over consumers and advertisers. The methods used by Facebook to achieve monopoly violated U.S. antitrust law and harmed consumer welfare, the suit says. Facebook, Inc. is an American social media conglomerate corporation based in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Rachel Johnson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com FALAFEL INC: Faces Sandoval Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ DIMAS SANDOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FALAFEL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588043 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 30, 2020) is brought under the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and applicable provisions of the California Code of Regulations, California Business & Professions Code, California Civil Code, California Code of Civil Procedure, and California Labor Code. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the proposed Class, seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and restitution of all benefits Defendants have received from their employees due to their unlawful business practices, including but not limited to, their failure to timely provide minimum, regular, and overtime compensation due for all hours worked, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest breaks to their employees or compensation in lieu thereof, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendants in California as a non-exempt employee during the Class period. His job duties included, inter alia, preparing and cooking food, working the cash register, dish washing, cleaning, general janitorial duties, and providing customer service to Falafel's customers. Falafel, Inc. is a falafel quick-service food social enterprise. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Garay, Esq. JOSE GARAY, APLC 249 E. Ocean Blvd. #814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (949) 208-3400 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: jose@garaylaw.com - and - Daniel J. Hyun, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL J. HYUN 1100 West Town and Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (949) 596-4782 Facsimile: (949) 528-2596 E-mail: dh@danielhyunlaw.com FAMOUS DAVE'S: Court Certifies Classes in Graham Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FAMOUS DAVE'S OF AMERICA, INC., and Doe Defendants 1-10, Civil Action No. DKC 19-0486 (D. Md.), Judge Deborah K. Chasanow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to certify a class; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to strike the declaration of Demetrius Weeden; (iv) denied the Plaintiff's motion for discovery sanctions; and (v) granted in part and denied in part the motions to seal with instructions. Plaintiff Graham, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed the suit on Feb. 19, 2019, against his former employer, Famous Dave's. He alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Maryland common law. Defendant Famous Dave's is a national restaurant chain offering barbeque style food with a principal place of business in Minnetonka, Minnesota. It currently owns 30 locations in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, New York, New Jersey, Iowa, Michigan and Ohio, with multiple franchisees nationwide. Mr. Graham is a resident of the state of Maryland and was employed by Famous Dave's as a server in the Waldorf location from Jan. 27, 2016 to July 1, 2017. Although he occasionally worked at large catering jobs for Famous Dave's at an over minimum wage rate, Mr. Graham typically worked and was paid at a server's cash wage plus tips from customers. He alleges that when he worked smaller catering jobs (typically half an hour or an hour long), he was also paid the cash wage. His typical shift started at 3:00 p.m. and ended around 12:30 a.m. Occasionally he would work the "early shift" on Saturday or Sunday mornings. At times he worked in excess of 40 hours a week and alleges that he was "repeatedly" told to clock out and then finish his side or closing work. Since January of 2016, Famous Dave's opted to utilize a "tip credit" for the Plaintiff and other servers, hosts and bartenders employed by Famous Dave's, that would allow Famous Dave's to claim a percentage of the employees' tips as payment under Federal and State minimum wage laws in order to pay them a cash wage of less than the applicable minimum wage. Mr. Graham argues that Famous Dave's failed adequately to inform him and other Tipped Employees of the tip credit provisions as required by law, pointing to the "Tip Credit Notice" Famous Dave's used in Maryland. Mr. Graham also alleges that Famous Dave's did not provide managers with any specific "instructions or training" on how to provide the tip credit notification, but Famous Dave's asserts that such instructions were left to local managers. Further, Mr. Graham argues that Famous Dave's utilized, and forced him to take part in, an illegal tip pool when it included "expeditors" within the pool, despite being normally untipped employees. Similarly, he alleges that Famous Dave's illegally required Tipped Employees to use their own tips to pay out employer expenses like "dine and dash" customers who leave without paying and other cash shortages. The Plaintiff has filed a motion to certify conditionally a collective action pursuant to the FLSA and a class action for a state law claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Specifically, he seeks to "conditionally certify a collective action of all Tipped Employees employed by the Defendant from Feb. 19, 2016 to the present." As to the proposed class, he seeks certification of "all current and former Tipped Employees who have worked for the Defendants in the State of Maryland during the statutory period covered by the Complaint and who do not opt-out of the action ("MD State Class")." In addition to the conditional certification motion, other pending motions are: a motion for partial summary judgment; a motion to strike a declaration; a motion for discovery sanctions, filed by Plaintiff; and seven motions to seal. The declaration for Demetrius Weeden is relevant to the disposition of several motions and the motion to strike it will be considered first. Mr. Graham argues that he suffered "surprise and prejudice" at Famous Dave's submission of the declaration along with its opposition to the motion to certify. Mr. Graham argues that Mr. Weeden's statements are unsubstantiated as there is no evidence that he "personally observed" such statements or that such "actions" were done "pursuant to corporate policy." The Plaintiff seeks discovery sanctions as a result. However, Judge Chasanow holds that as general manager of the Waldorf location, Mr. Weeden would have the requisite personal knowledge to make such comments and observations as he would have had an intimate awareness and participation in the new hire process. Famous Dave's correctly argues that such arguments go to the weight such statements should be afforded and not their admissibility. The Motion to Strike Declaration of Demetrius Weeden is denied. Turning to the Collective Action and Class Certification, the Plaintiff puts forward multiple basis for identifying prospective Plaintiffs as a collective or class, all based on alleged "common duties" and the "same company policies and procedures" to which the employees were subject and for which they seek relief. The Defendant responds with numerous possible defenses. Among other things, it argues that all Famous Dave's employees had a tip credit notice that was provided to them. Further, the Plaintiff himself received a tip notice as acknowledged by his electronic signature in receipt. It argues that instead of acknowledging this fact, the Plaintiff attempts to poke holes in the credit notice itself with meritless allegations of its deficiencies. The Plaintiff seeks to "conditionally certify a collective action of all Tipped Employees employed by the Defendant from Feb. 19, 2016 to the present. Judge Chasanow analyzes the potential collective solely in relation to Famous Dave's alleged failure to provide proper tip credit notification. He finds that the only claim common to the purported class is Famous Dave's alleged failure to meet the requirements of Section 203(m) and it therefore improperly claimed a tip credit and failed to meet its obligations under Maryland and federal wage laws. Given the wide berth afforded claims of willfulness at this stage, the three-year statute of limitations will apply as it relates to potential class certification. Accordingly, a collective action will be conditionally certified as to tipped employees at Famous Dave's company owned restaurants during the three year period prior to the date the certification motion was filed. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, the Plaintiffs seek class certification for all Maryland Tipped Employees during the statutory period covered by the Complaint who did not opt-out of the action" under its MWHL claims. The Plaintiff argues that the purported class satisfies Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) in that the alleged and common injury suffered by the class, being underpaid due to improper use of a tip credit, predominates over individualized questions and that class action is the superior method of adjudicating the matter. Judge Chasanow holds that as the Plaintiff argues, individual class members have "little incentive" to bring their claims individually as individual recoveries would be small relative to the costs of litigating. In that sense, there is a clear collective action problem that class certification would solve. Both the predominance and superiority requirements are met, and a single forum for such claims is clearly desirable in this instance as a matter of judicial economy. The purported class is certified as it relates to the Plaintiff's claim that the requirements to use a tip credit were not met and thus Maryland Tipped Employees were not paid a wage at or above the state's minimum wage. The parties will be directed to confer regarding access to identifying information about the putative Plaintiffs and the form and contents of notice. Mr. Graham moves for partial summary judgment on behalf of himself and "all others similarly situated." The motion for summary judgment seems to extend to the potential claims of Famous Dave's Tipped Employees nationwide. The Plaintiff argues that the factual record indisputably demonstrates that the Defendant failed to (i) properly inform its Tipped Employees of all of the provisions of the statute and (ii) utilized an improper tip pool, as well as retained part of the employees' tips. Famous Dave's shows that the record amply demonstrates that there are material factual questions that remain as to both claims. Judge Chasanow finds that Mr. Weeden's declaration is fatal to the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, even considered alone. That evidence, along with the other evidence put forth by Famous Dave's, shows, in a multitude of ways, that the factual record does not indisputably show what Mr. Graham purports it to show, on either count. The Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Like the Plaintiff's motion to strike, his request for discovery sanctions against the Defendant is without merit. Discovery sanctions are reserved for egregious discovery violations. As Famous Dave's points out, it consistently complied with its duty to supplement its document production with additional documents as they were discovered. Further, Mr. Hank's extension depositions show an adequately prepared deponent except for the occasional misstatement, misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on isolated topics. Given the extreme and exceptional nature of discovery sanctions, however, the latter inference is more proper. The Parties may shape and supplement their arguments in response to new legal and factual disputes as they arise without running afoul of their discovery obligations. The discovery sanctions are denied. Finally, as to seven pending unopposed motions to seal, four filed by the Plaintiff and three by the Defendant. Judge Chasanow holds that nearly all of the motions to seal contain only boilerplate recitations. Proposed redactions must be limited to information specifically identified as containing either sensitive private information or, alternatively, trade secrets. The Plaintiff's first motion to seal sought to seal the memorandum in support of his certification motion, a declaration, and two exhibits to the declaration based on the Defendant's designation the exhibits as "confidential" under the stipulated protective order. Such a request is insufficient. The parties were told that the motion to seal would be denied if no one filed a properly supported motion. Accordingly, that motion to seal will be denied and ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29, and 30 will be unsealed, rules the Court. The Plaintiff has also moved to seal his memorandum in support of his motion for partial summary judgment, and his reply memorandum on the certification motion with a declaration, based on the same so-called "confidential" exhibits. Because there's no justification has been supplied, the Judge wil deny those motions and ECF Nos. 35, 49, and 50 will be unsealed. An even more generalized motion to seal the Plaintiff's reply memorandum in support of partial summary judgment was filed by Mr. Graham on Oct. 21, 2019. Without identifying any specific information, it states simply that the memorandum discussed documents similarly designed as confidential by the Defendant. As with the previous motions, it fails in justifying any sealing. The motion to seal is denied. If the Plaintiff wishes to redact sensitive information in his reply memorandum to his motion for partial summary judgment or if the Defendant seeks similar relief, they have 14 days to file an appropriate motion with a memorandum that complies with Rule 105.11. In the meantime, the memorandum will remain temporarily under seal. If neither party moves to seal or redact, the paper at ECF No. 52 will be unsealed, rules Judge Chasanow. The Defendant subsequently filed a motion to seal Exhibits E and F to its motion in opposition to the certification motion. It first seeks to file Exhibit E under the same confidentiality order, but specifically identifies it as the Plaintiff's paystubs with "wages earned and tax withholdings" listed. It argues that Exhibit F is comprised of "internal company documents" that the Defendant wishes to keep out of the public record so that it cannot be used by "Famous Dave's competitors." Unlike Mr. Graham's motion, it seeks only the "least restrictive approach" to protecting the confidentiality of these exhibits in moving to file them, but not any portion of the Opposition, under seal. The motion to seal is granted. The actual exhibits may remain under seal. Famous Dave's similarly moves to seal the Exhibits E and H to its opposition to motion for partial summary judgment. Exhibit E is Famous Dave's Tip Pool Notice previously discussed, and Exhibit H is the alternate tip credit notification labeled for use in Famous Dave's Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey and Virginia locations. Damous Dave's identifies these as "internal company documents" that it also does not want to be part of the public record to protect what it claims is proprietary information. Judge Chasanow holds that confidentiality order and the generic labeling of these documents as "internal company documents," does not entitle them to be filed under seal. Nowhere does Famous Dave's lend factual support to the assertion that these documents contain any proprietary information at all, or how a competitor would even exploit such information to its advantage. The public interest in access to these documents outweighs any countervailing force and the motion to seal is denied. If the Defendant wishes to redact what it considers proprietary business information from these documents, it has 14 days to renew the motion with a memorandum that complies with Rule 105.11. In the meantime, the exhibits will remain temporarily under seal. If it does not renew its motion, the ECF Nos. 45 and 46 will be unsealed. Famous Dave's final motion to seal is made in reference to Exhibit A to its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to strike. The already partially redacted document contains "employees' job titles, work locations, salaries, dates of hire, eligibility for benefits, job status and termination date (if applicable)." The motion to seal is granted. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Chasanow (i) granted in part and denied in part the motion conditionally to certify a collective action and to certify a class; (i) denied the motion for partial summary judgment; (iii) denied the motion to strike the declaration of Weeden; (iv) denied the motion for sanctions; (v) granted the first and third motions to seal filed by the Defendant, and (vi) denied the rest of the motions to seal. A separate order will follow. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fktaow from Leagle.com. FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Walters Suit Moved to Northern District of Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, GREGORY WALTERS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. FAMOUS TRANSPORTS, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-08016-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants Panther II Transportation, Inc.'s, and the ArcBest entities' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs Gregory Walters, and Christi Walters bring the putative class-action lawsuit against Defendants Famous, Panther II, and ArcBest Logistics, Inc. and ArcBest Corp., for failure to provide (1) required meal periods and (2) required rest periods; failure to pay (3) overtime wages, (4) minimum wage, and (5) all wages due to discharges or quitting employees; (6) failure to maintain records; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized statements; (8) failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred in the discharge of duties; (9) unlawful deductions from wages; (10) breach of contract; (11) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (12) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Defendants removed the case to the Court on Dec. 6, 2019. Now before the Court is Defendants Panther II's, and the ArcBest entities' motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio. The Moving Defendants aver that transfer is appropriate under a forum selection clause in the relevant contractual agreement. Alternatively, they contend that transfer is warranted under the relevant factors to be considered under a section 1404(a) analysis. As to Forum Selection Clause, Judge Rogers finds that while some putative class members are California residents, the overwhelming majority including the named Plaintiffs are not. At times, such a situation would create a strong public policy dilemma. However, the Judge need not definitively resolve the dispute, because even assuming that the forum selection clause is not enforceable due to California's strong public policy in retaining jurisdiction over labor disputes under its codes and statutes, the relevant factors under section 1404(a) overall weigh in favor of transfer to the Northern District of Ohio. As to the Section 1404(a) Factors, the relevant factors to consider under it include: (1) the Plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Judge Rogers holds that while some of the factors here weigh neutrally between Ohio and California, most of the remaining factors weigh in favor of transfer to Ohio. She finds that (i) neither of the named Plaintiffs are residents of California and only a small percentage of the potential class members are California residents; (ii) on a purely geographic and mileage basis, Ohio is the closer forum for the named parties than is the state of California, and Ohio is further overwhelmingly more convenient to potential class members than is California; (iii) the Plaintiffs' lack of specificity does little to show that witness convenience favors California; (iv) the Defendants have demonstrated that the majority of records and relevant policies in the matter are stored electronically either in Ohio with Panther II, or in Michigan with Famous; (v) the Sixth Circuit is capable of certifying a question to the California Supreme Court just as the Ninth Circuit can so do; (vi) judicial efficiency is neutral between Ohio and California ; and (vii) Panther II is a company with its headquarters in the state of Ohio. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rogers concludes that transfer to the Northern District of Ohio is appropriate. She granted the motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the matter to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5kvmozg from Leagle.com. FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion for leave by class plaintiff and the motion to adjourn class certification by the defendant in the "Turner Suit" remains pending. Discovery is still stayed pending decision on the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's disclosure related to the FPI Agribusiness Inc. (FPI) Loan Program was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action. Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action. On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner, as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action. On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Turner Action. On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk Capital Management's dismissal from the case, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29, 2020. These motions remain pending and discovery remains stayed pending decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related expenses at this time." Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. FINE CRAFTSMAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alvarez Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ZULAY ANDREA ALVAREZ; GERARDO AYALA; ANIBAL YAGUACHI CAMPOVERDE; EDUARDO GABRIEL VILLAFUERTE CHAVEZ; CESAR CUA; RAFAEL HERNANDEZ; OSCAR SANCHEZ JUAREZ; EDUARDO MUNOZ; ELIAS ANTONIO CHAVEZ PENA ALEJANDRO PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FINE CRAFTSMAN GROUP, LLC; JOSEPH ZYSKOWSKI; and KRZYSZTOF POGORZELSKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10452 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and statutory penalties for notice and record keeping violation. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as carpenters. Fine Craftsman Group, LLC provides building and construction services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ria Julien, Esq. MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC 1 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 231-2235 E-mail: jmirer@mmsjlaw.com FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway ----------------------------------------------------- Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard (Tetra Tech), Lennar and the Company as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard. Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them before they purchased their homes. They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants (not including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San Francisco Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well as certain declaratory relief. All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and indemnification rights against third parties, including related parties, with respect to these claims. Five Point said, "Given the preliminary nature of these claims, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use communities in California, the United States. The company operates through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. FLUIDIGM CORPORATION: Facing Putative Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Fluidigm Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a defendant in a putative class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In September 2020, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed against the Company (also naming its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer as defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who acquired the company's common stock between February 7, 2019 and November 5, 2019. The litigation is in its early stages and the lead plaintiff has not yet been determined. Fluidigm said, "We believe the claims alleged in the complaint lack merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously." Fluidigm Corporation is a global company that improves life through comprehensive health insight. The company's innovative technologies and multi-omic tools are used by researchers to reveal meaningful insights into health and disease, identify biomarkers to inform decisions, and accelerate the development of more effective therapies. The company creates, manufactures, and markets a range of products and services, including instruments, reagents and software that are used by researchers and clinical labs worldwide. The company is based in South San Francisco, California. FORD MOTOR: F-150 Transmission Class Action Tossed -------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit has been dismissed after an Illinois truck owner alleged defects caused 2017-2019 F-150s to hesitate and surge. According to the transmission class action lawsuit, the plaintiff leased a 2018 Ford F-150 XLT 3.5 EcoBoost equipped with a 10R80 10-speed automatic transmission. The plaintiff claims Ford knew or should have known the transmissions shift harshly and slip gears, but the automaker chose to conceal the alleged defects to continue selling the trucks. Those alleged defects lead to severe damage which can cause the F-150s to catch fire, allegedly making the trucks too dangerous to drive. The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit alleges drivers have constantly complained about their trucks jerking and lunging since the 10R80 transmissions were first installed in the trucks. The lawsuit also alleges Ford issued several technical service bulletins to dealerships, and F-150 owners have submitted multiple complaints to the government. Ford dealers were told the F-150 10-speed transmissions "may exhibit harsh/bumpy upshift, downshift and/or engagement concerns," and the bulletins suggested reprogramming the powertrain control modules. The TSBs further said the F-150 trucks were "equipped with an adaptive transmission shift strategy which allows the vehicle's computer to learn the transmission's unique parameters and improve shift quality. When the adaptive strategy is reset, the computer will begin a re-learning process," which "may result in firmer than normal upshifts and downshifts for several days." But according to the transmission lawsuit, Ford's ideas for a fix failed to prevent the alleged problems. "Ford refuses to replace or repair the Transmissions and merely states that the abrupt and harsh shifting is normal." - F-150 transmission lawsuit Judge Dismisses The Ford F-150 Transmission Lawsuit Ford filed a motion to dismiss the 10-speed transmission lawsuit, and the judge found Ford's arguments persuasive. According to the automaker, express and implied warranty claims don't hold up for multiple reasons, including because the F-150 truck owner failed to provide Ford with pre-lawsuit notice of alleged breach of warranties. The judge agreed and noted how the Illinois Supreme Court requires a plaintiff to "directly notify the seller of the troublesome nature of the transaction or be barred from recovering for a breach of warranty." This requirement is meant "to encourage pre-suit settlement negotiations." Once the warranty claims were dismissed, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim had to be dismissed because, "it is contingent on Plaintiff having a viable state law warranty claim." The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit also alleges Ford engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, but the judge dismissed the claim after finding the allegations were too generalized. According to Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., the generalized allegations fail to specifically describe the misrepresentations on which the plaintiff allegedly relied. "Defendant does not identify 'the time, place, and content of the misrepresentation,' or 'the method by which the misrepresentation was communicated to the plaintiff.'" - Judge Dow Ford also argued a claim for unjust enrichment had to go because the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Illinois law. In addition, the automaker said a claim for negligence should be dismissed because the transmission lawsuit didn't allege the plaintiff suffered any non-economic damage. The judge agreed to dismiss both claims and ruled the F-150 owner didn't allege that he suffered any physical injuries as a result of driving the F-150. The plaintiff also never alleged the transmission caused any damage to property. The Ford F-150 transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - O'Connor, et al., v. Ford Motor Company. The plaintiff is represented by Greg Coleman Law, and Wexler Wallace. [GN] FREIGHTCENTER INC: Swarthout Sue Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN SWARTHOUT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FREIGHTCENTER, INC., MATTHEW BROSIOUS, ALI CHOINIERE, AMY VAN NESS and JAMIE SMITH, Case No. 8:20-cv-02910 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 7, 2020) alleges that the Defendants denied the Plaintiff and those similarly situated proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from mid-2013 to late 2015 and early 2017 to late 2019 in Palm Harbor, Florida. The Plaintiff was employed as carrier sales representative or other similar job title. FreightCenter is a privately owned, non-asset based 3rd-party logistics provider with headquarters in Palm Harbor, Florida. FreightCenter acts as a conduit between freight carriers and commercial or residential shippers located in the United States and Canada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Cantrell, Esq. Dorrella L. Gallaway, Esq. CANTRELL ZWETSCH, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (800) 698-6650 Facsimile: (813) 448-2094 E-mail: wcantrell@czeblaw.com dgallaway@czeblaw.com - and - Matthew A. Crist, Esq. CRIST LEGAL | PA 2904 West Bay to Bay Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Telephone: (813) 575-5200 Facsimile: (813) 575-2520 E-mail: cristm@cristlegal.com FULTON FINANCIAL: Tentative Agreement Reached in Kress Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Fulton Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the corporation and plaintiffs' counsel in D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985, have reached a tentative agreement with respect to the financial terms of a potential settlement to resolve this lawsuit. On October 15, 2019, a former Fulton Bank teller supervisor, D. Kress filed a putative collective and class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other teller supervisors, tellers, and other similar non-exempt employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, D. Kress v. Fulton Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-18985. Fulton Bank accepted summons without a formal service of process on January 20, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Fulton Bank did not record or otherwise account for the amount of time D. Kress and putative collective and class members spent conducting branch opening security procedures. The allegation is that, as a result, Fulton Bank did not properly compensate those employees for their regular and overtime wages. The lawsuit alleges that by doing so, Fulton violated: (i) the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and seeks back overtime wages for a period of three years, liquidated damages and attorney fees and costs; (ii) the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law and seeks back overtime wages for a period of six years, treble damages and attorney fees and costs; and (iii) the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and seeks back wages for a period of six years, treble damages and attorney fees and costs. The lawsuit also asserts New Jersey common law claims seeking compensatory damages and interest. Following the submission of a formal demand for damages by Counsel representing plaintiffs, the Corporation and Plaintiffs' Counsel engaged in negotiations regarding the potential settlement of this lawsuit on a collective and class basis. While the negotiations are ongoing, the Corporation and Plaintiffs' Counsel have reached a tentative agreement with respect to the financial terms of a potential settlement to resolve this lawsuit. If the parties are able to reach a formal settlement agreement, that settlement agreement would be subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Corporation is not able to provide any assurance that a formal settlement agreement will be reached, or that the District Court will approve the settlement agreement. The financial terms of the potential settlement involve an amount that is not expected to be material to the Corporation. The Corporation established an accrued liability during the third quarter of 2020 for the amount of the potential settlement. Fulton Financial Corporation is a multi-bank holding company. The Banks offer a full range of general retail and commercial banking services, including deposits, loans, equipment leasing and financing, and credit cards. Fulton operates in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey. The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. FUN & FIT: Hickmon Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides --------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA HICKMON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. FUN & FIT LLC d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care, BRIAN TRAINOR and JOHN DOES #1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-10270 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the N.Y. Health Care Worker Wage Parity Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the Class minimum wages and/or overtime wages equal to time and one half their employees' regular wages for hours worked over 40 in a work week, breached their obligation to pay all wages they were due, failed to pay an extra hour at the minimum wage for working a "spread of hours" in excess of 10 hours, and failed to pay the living wages and health benefits or health benefit supplements for all labor performed by the Plaintiff and the Class. The Plaintiff was a home health aide/maid employed by the Defendants from about September 7, 2011 until about April 17, 2020. Fun & Fit LLC d/b/a Home Instead Senior Care is an elderly home care services provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com GENERAL MILLS: Loses Bid to Seal Expert Declaration in Hilsley Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CRYSTAL HILSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00395-L-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendants' Motion to Seal Portions of the Expert Declaration of Dolf DeRovira. The Expert Report was filed with the Defendants' non-opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Plaintiffs' motion includes consideration whether a class action should be certified. Although in ruling on class certification courts do not decide the merits of the case, the inquiry overlaps with the merits inquiry. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is sufficiently related to the merits to warrant the application of the "compelling reasons" standard. The Defendants contend that the Expert Report contains references to "highly proprietary product formulas," and that public release of such information could cause Defendants to suffer significant competitive disadvantage. The publication of materials that could result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records. Nevertheless, sealing of court records requires a particularized showing. Judge Lorenz finds that the Defendants' motion is general and conclusory. It does not address either the elements necessary to show the trade secret nature of the formulas, nor specific prejudice or harm that would result from disclosure. No declaration is provided in support of their contention. Moreover, upon review of the redacted and unredacted versions of the Expert Report, the Judge finds it apparent that the Defendants request the sealing of more than just proprietary product formulas or specific discussion of the formulas. Accordingly, the Defendants have not made the requisite showing of compelling reasons. It is therefore denied. Because the unredacted Expert Report was lodged pending order on motion to seal, it will not be considered, rules the Court. Judge Lorenz wrote in his Sept. 23, 2020 Order, a full-text copy of which is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ay5bbt from Leagle.com, that he is doubtful that the redacted portions of the Expert Report, including the product formula, is relevant. In their Non-opposition, which was publicly filed and not included in the Motion to Seal, the Defendants quote from the Expert Report and discuss expert opinions to the extent necessary to support their Non-opposition arguments. The Defendants should evaluate the publicly-filed redacted version of the Expert Report in light of the arguments they raise in their Non-opposition to determine whether reference to the redacted portions of the report, and a related motion to seal, are necessary at all, notes the Court. GENERAL MOTORS: Adams Appeals Judgment in RICO Suit to 9th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Marc Adams, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08047-JFW-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks damages for the Defendant's violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint concerns purchasers or lessees of Corvette vehicles equipped with the LS7 7.0LV8 engine concerning model years 2006 to 2013. The vehicles exhibited excessive valve guide wear which led to engine failures and inspections and repairs. The Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in this matter on October 14, 2015. The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's Judgment dated November 24, 2020, wherein the Court ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that New GM shall have judgment in its favor against Plaintiffs. The Court further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiffs take nothing and that New GM shall have its costs of suit. The appellate case is captioned as Marc Adams, et al. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 20-56290, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 7, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case: -- Appellants Marc Adams, Lyle Barkley, Michael Fernandez, Roy Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Howard Kopel, Benjamin Luke, Robert C. Murphy, Dennis Palmquist, John Pendleton, Mike Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel Quezada, Mark Rowe, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke and Dallas Wicker Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 14, 2020; -- Transcript shall be ordered by January 5, 2021; -- Transcript is due on February 4, 2021; -- Appellants Marc Adams, Lyle Barkley, Michael Fernandez, Roy Haleen, Kaleb Isley, Howard Kopel, Benjamin Luke, Robert C. Murphy, Dennis Palmquist, John Pendleton, Mike Peters, Kai Qian, Miguel Quezada, Mark Rowe, Anthony Stack, Randy Standke and Dallas Wicker opening brief is due on March 17, 2021; -- Appellee General Motors LLC answering brief is due on April 19, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARC ADAMS, LYLE BARKLEY, MICHAEL FERNANDEZ, ROY HALEEN, KALEB ISLEY, HOWARD KOPEL, BENJAMIN LUKE, ROBERT C. MURPHY, DENNIS PALMQUIST, JOHN PENDLETON, MIKE PETERS, KAI QIAN, MIGUEL QUEZADA, MARK ROWE, ANTHONY STACK, RANDY STANDKE, and DALLAS WICKER are represented by: Andre Emilio Jardini, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com Defendant-Appellee GENERAL MOTORS LLC is represented by: Andrew Holmer, Esq. CROWELL & MORING, LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4750 E-mail: aholmer@crowell.com - and - Gregory Oxford, Esq. ISAACS CLOUSE CROSE & OXFORD 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 950 Torrance, CA 90503 Telephone: (310) 316-1990 E-mail: goxford@icclawfirm.com - and - April N. Ross, Esq. Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2500 E-mail: aross@crowell.com ksooy@crowell.com GENERAL MOTORS: Altobelli Sues Over Defective Lithium-Ion Batteries ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN ALTOBELLI; and F. DAYLE ANDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-13256-TGB-CI ECF (E.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 2020) is an action against the Defendant for failure to disclose a uniform and widespread defect in the 60 kWh 350 V lithium-ion battery. According to the complaint, the defect in the battery causes the high voltage battery to overheat when charged to full capacity and results in an unreasonable safety risk to the drivers and passengers of vehicles equipped with the defective battery. These vehicles are the 2017, 2018, and 2019 models of the Chevrolet Bolt. The Defective Battery contains a serious manufacturing defect that causes the battery system to overheat when the battery is charged to full or nearly full capacity, putting the battery at risk of exploding or catching fire. This can result in catastrophic damage to the Class Vehicles, and it also causes an immediate safety risk to the vehicles' occupants or the property surrounding the vehicles. General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and automotive financing services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. Emma Wright, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com ewright@kellerrohrback.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com GENERAL MOTORS: Rankin Sues Over Defective Automobile Batteries --------------------------------------------------------------- Casper Rankin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-13279-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 2020), is brought under consumer protection, common law, and warranty claims, as well as claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act against the Defendant, arising from the sale or lease of thousands of 2017- 2019 Chevrolet Bolt vehicles throughout California and the United States manufactured by the Defendant that are equipped with defective high voltage batteries which pose a significant fire risk when charged to full or near full capacity. The fire risk stemming from the defective high voltage batteries is present even when the vehicle is off, is parked, and is not receiving a charge. The defect affects model year 2017 through 2019 Chevy Bolt vehicles sold or leased to consumers in the United States, including Plaintiff's vehicle. All Class Vehicles share the same dangerously defective condition that GM failed to disclose to the Plaintiff, consumers, and each Class Member. General Motors issued a recall on November 13, 2020, citing the potential number of vehicles affected at 50,932 and stating that a battery fire increases the risk of injury. General Motors acknowledged in these recall documents that the defective high voltage batteries create significant safety risks: "A certain number of these vehicles were built with high voltage cells produced at LG Chem's Ochang, Korea facility that may pose a risk of fire when charged to full, or very close to full, capacity." The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased GM vehicles fitted with a defective high voltage battery pack that poses a significant fire risk. This is a major safety concern because owners have reported that a fire may originate from the battery pack when the vehicle is parked, such as in a garage or car port. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered harm because of GM's decision to limit, through software, their vehicle's battery capacity and, by extension, the distance they can travel on a single charge. The Plaintiff and Class members have overpaid for their vehicles and will pay significant sums for GM to attempt, and possibly fail, to properly repair their vehicles and return the battery pack to full capacity. The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, and the repair of, replacement of, or refund of money paid to own or lease all Class Vehicles, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a Certified Pre-Owned 2017 Chevrolet Bolt from Courtesy Chevrolet Center in San Diego, California. The Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles throughout the United States, including in the State of California, under the brand names Chevrolet, GMC, and Cadillac.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University, Suite 300 Rochester, Michigan 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program on Standby ------------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trial court overseeing two Washington cases has alerted the Company that litigation will remain on standby due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014, against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act ("TVPA"). The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched because of the level of payment the detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program, as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program that are at issue in the case, are authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress. On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three similar lawsuits have been filed. two in Washington and one in California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on October 9, 2017. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S. District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective state's minimum wage laws. However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's equivalent state statute. The Court certified a nationwide class which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are successful on the merits of their claims. On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from proceeding to trial. The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019, the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case. While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be ultimately determined at trial. On July 20, 2020, the trial court for the two Washington cases alerted the Company that the litigation continued to be on "standby" due to the COVID-19 pandemic, "which is still 'raging and explosive'" in the jurisdiction. As a result, a probable trial date is unknown. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits. The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing, development, and operation of correctional, detention, and community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based in Boca Raton, Florida. GEO GROUP: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Appointed in Hartel Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court entered an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiff and approving the selection of counsel in the purported shareholder class action suit initiated by Steve Hartel. On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley, and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, and operational and compliance policies, specifically related to the Company's COVID-19 response procedures. The lawsuit is brought by Steve Hartel individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period between February 27, 2020 through and including June 16, 2020. The complaint alleges that the Company, Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. On October 1, 2020, the court entered an unopposed order appointing lead plaintiff, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the initial complaint and setting a deadline of November 17, 2020 for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing, development, and operation of correctional, detention, and community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based in Boca Raton, Florida. GLOBALROSE.COM LLC: Monegro Files ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLOBALROSE.COM LLC. The case is captioned as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBALROSE.COM LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10000-RA (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2020). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and is assigned to Judge Ronnie Abrams. Globalrose.com LLC, a member of the Society of American Florists, is an online fresh flower company serving the United States market. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GOGO INC: Motion to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., is pending. On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current Chief Financial Officer and President, Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by us purporting to relate to our 2Ku antenna's reliability and installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint. In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity that defendants acted with scienter. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and in December 2019, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In February 2020 the company filed a motion to dismiss such second amended complaint. In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a proposed third amendment complaint, which was granted by the Court. Plaintiffs proceeded to file the third amended complaint in July 2020 and the company filed a motion to dismiss in September 2020. Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to continue to defend the claims vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses." Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation industry in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA), Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation (BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. GREENWAY HEALTH: Charges Customers for EHR Release, Valley Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Valley OB-Gyn Clinic, P.C., a Michigan Professional Corporation v. GREENWAY HEALTH, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and GREENWAY HEALTH, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00220-TCB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 11, 2020), is brought to recover the illegal fees Greenway charged for the return of its customers' own proprietary data. According to the complaint, these fees amounted to little more than a ransom for patient data held hostage by Greenway. Valley also seeks the return of the patient billing data that Greenway continues to wrongly possess. The Defendant sells electronic health record ("EHR") to doctors and nurses and charges them upfront and recurring monthly fees totaling tens (often hundreds) of thousands of dollars over the course of a contractual term. Digital medical records stored on EHRs have largely replaced paper medical records that doctors and nurses previously kept in their offices. With the advent of cloud computing, patient records are often no longer stored at practice group offices at all. Instead, doctors and nurses often type their patient records into an Internet-connected software interface and store the records remotely on an HER vendor's servers. Greenway offers this type of "hosted" or "cloud" EHR. The service is analogous to storage centers that offer physical space for businesses to store paper records. Despite this technological sea change, two basic facts have not changed. First, patient records are still critical to the practice of medicine and the health and safety of patients. Second, the medical practice groups that create the patient records and store them on EHRs are still the owners of their own business records. While Greenway serves as the sole custodian of the data during the term of its customer's contract, it does not and has never owned the data entered by doctors and nurses. The mere act of storing records with a vendor does not transfer ownership, regardless of whether the records are placed in a vendor's physical locker or an Internet-connected database. The importance of patient data to medical care gives EHR vendors the opportunity to illegally exploit their customer's data for their commercial advantage. Not all EHR vendors do so. Unfortunately, Greenway did by implementing a policy of charging surprise fees to provide customers with a copy of their own data when customers terminated their contracts with Greenway. This policy punishes customers who terminate their contracts by holding critical patient data hostage until the customer pays a previously undisclosed and unagreed fee. The policy furthers Greenway's commercial interest by increasing its profits and deterring customers from terminating their contracts (effectively locking them in to a continued business relationship with Greenway), the suit says. Valley OB-Gyn was one of many customers who paid these fees to Greenway for the release of its data upon the termination of its contract. Like many other customers, Valley OB-Gyn reasonably terminated its contract with Greenway after learning that Greenway had made false statements about its EHR's capabilities. Valley OB-Gyn first learned this information in February 2019, when the Department of Justice filed a False Claims Act complaint against Greenway and announced Greenway's agreement to pay $57 million to settle the case. Greenway's settlement with the Government also included a Corporate Integrity Agreement (the "CIA"), which, among other things, expressly prohibited Greenway from charging any fees for the service of returning all data to existing customers. Despite its legal obligations to return its customers' data under the CIA, its contracts, and common law, Greenway refused Valley OB-Gyn's request for copies of its proprietary data. Instead, Greenway demanded multiple flat fees of $11,200 for the return of Valley OB-Gyn's patient medical records. Additionally, Greenway refused to return Valley's patient billing data and continued to charge Valley excessive monthly fees for access to this information, says the complaint. Plaintiff Valley is a healthcare clinic comprised of skilled providers who have been offering women obstetric and gynecology services since 1968. Greenway Health, LLC is an EHRs software vendor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Cooper Knowles, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF C. COOPER KNOWLES, LLC 750 Hammond Drive, Bldg. 12, Ste. 200 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: (770) 668-2081 Email: cknowles@cckfirm.com - and - Michael J. Brickman, Esq. James C. Bradley, Esq. Nina Fields Britt, Esq. Caleb M. Hodge, Esq. RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A (29464) Post Office Box 1007 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: (843) 727-6500 Email: mbrickman@rpwb.com jbradley@rpwb.com nfields@rpwb.com chodge@rpwb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. John T. Nicolaou, Esq. Gabriel A. Panek, Esq. LEIFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Email: jselbin@lchb.com jnicolaou@lchb.com gpanek@lchb.com - and - Timothy C. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER, LC 213 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 345-0346 Email: tbailey@bjc4u.com - and - Brett Ialacci, Esq. BADHAM & BUCK, LLC 2001 Park Place, North Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: (205) 521-0036 Email: bialacci@badhambuck.com HARRIS WATER: Loses FLSA Class Decertification Bid in Pino Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDEN PINO, LESTER MONCADA, and WALTER ULLOA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARRIS WATER MAIN & SEWER CONTRACTORS INC., STEVEN KOGEL, Individually, and BRETT KOGEL, individually; Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-5910 (KAM)(RER)(E.D. N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (i) denied the Defendants' motion for decertification of the conditionally certified Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action pursuant to Section 216(b); and (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. On Oct. 10, 2017, Plaintiffs Pino, Moncada, and Ulloa brought the action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former workers employed by Defendants Harris, Steven Kogel and Brett Kogel, alleging violations of the FLSA, New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCCRR"). The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by defendant Harris as non-exempt crew members/field employees. The Plaintiff Pino was employed by the Defendants from approximately 2010 through 2016 and worked an average of 60 hours per week. Plaintiff Moncada was employed by the Defendants, from approximately 2005 until June 29, 2015, and worked an average of 70 hours per week. Plaintiff Ulloa was employed by the Defendants, between approximately September 2010 and 2015, and worked an average of 60 to 65 hours per week. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants engaged in unlawful policies and practices regarding their hours and wages. They allege, inter alia, that they were the victims of the Defendants' unlawful common and uniform policy of failing to pay earned wages and earned overtime wages for hours worked over 40 hours in a week. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they were not compensated for time spent loading and unloading trucks at the beginning and end of each day, and that the Defendants reduced their wages by one hour each day for a lunch break even when the Plaintiffs worked through lunch. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiffs with the required pay rate notices and wage statements. They further allege that the Defendants retaliated against workers who complained about the aforementioned unlawful practices and policies. On Sept. 2, 2018, Magistrate Judge Raymon Reyes granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. Twelve individuals opted to join the class, which at the time included the three named Plaintiffs, for a total of 15 Plaintiffs. The Defendants requested and were granted leave to file a motion before the Court to decertify the conditionally-certified FLSA collective action. On Jan. 9, 2020, the parties filed their fully-briefed motion papers in connection with the Defendants' motion to decertify. On Nov. 8, 2019, the Plaintiffs requested to amend their complaint as a result of discovery that allegedly uncovered the Defendants' failure to comply with their obligations under Section 195.1(a) of NYLL. The Court granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to amend the complaint and set a corresponding briefing schedule. As part of the order, it held the Plaintiff's letter request seeking a pre-motion conference regarding a potential Rule 23 motion in abeyance until the Court had ruled on the motion to amend and the motion to decertify. The proposed Amended Complaint differs from the original Complaint in two respects: (1) an expanded putative Rule 23 class for the Defendants' alleged failure to provide all employees with written pay rate notices as required by NYLL Section 195; and (2) the removal of the Plaintiffs' waiver of liquidated damages in the event that the class is certified. The Plaintiffs allege that discovery has uncovered information substantiating the Defendants' failure to comply with their obligations under NYLL Section 195, and allege that the Defendants' failure was pervasive and extended beyond the original putative class of "non-exempt crew members/field employees performing manual labor" to all employees employed by them. The Plaintiffs also seek to amend the complaint to remove their waiver of liquidated damages to reflect the remedies available to the Plaintiffs under Rule 23. In their opposition, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' amendment would cause undue delay; the Defendants will be prejudiced if the class is expanded and the amendment regarding the liquidated damages waiver is accepted; and the proposed amendment regarding the expanded class is futile. In their reply, the Plaintiffs assert good cause for the amendments; the amendments would not result in undue delay or prejudice; and the amendments are not futile. Because she finds that the Plaintiffs have met their modest burden in showing that they were adversely affected by the Defendants' common policy or plan, and thus the Plaintiffs are "similarly situated," Judge Matsumoto denied the Defendants' motion to decertify the FLSA collective action. The Plaintiffs have adequately established that there was a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. First, the Plaintiffs performed the same type of work under the direction of the same supervisors and were compensated according to the same plan. Second, the Judge is not persuaded that the various defenses available to the Defendants are so individualized that decertification is required. Third, 15 Plaintiffs have joined the action, and the Judge finds that litigating overtime claims for each of these Plaintiffs individually would be unduly burdensome on all parties. The Plaintiffs will file the Amended Complaint, with the changes noted, on Oct. 7, 2020. Within two business days of the Plaintiffs' filing of the Amended Complaint, the Judge directed the parties to file a joint letter, certifying that the Amended Complaint complies with the Order. As needed, any discovery-related or other pretrial issues or questions are respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Reyes. Judge Matsumoto granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. She granted the Plaintiffs' request to remove the complaint's waiver of liquidated damages in the event a class is certified. She denied as futile the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment to expand the putative Rule 23 class based on the Defendants' alleged failure to supply them with written pay notices as required by the NYLL. Among other things, Judge Matsumoto finds that the Defendants do not cite any case law in support of their position, nor have they shown that they would be prejudiced. And though the Plaintiffs have not been diligent in correcting their pleading error, the Second Circuit has left open the possibility that amendments could be permitted even where a plaintiff has not been diligent in seeking an amendment, absent a showing of undue prejudice for the non-moving party. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5oxp5ol from Leagle.com. HC2 HOLDINGS: Agents Distributes Settlement Funds in DBMG Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the settlement distribution agents had distributed the settlement funds to the eligible former and present record holders of DBM Global Inc. stock. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global Inc. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323. On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The initially operative complaint filed by Mark Jacobs alleged, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also challenged a potential short-form merger based upon the plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer. The Complaint sought rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. On November 15, 2019, the parties filed definitive documentation in support of a proposed settlement of the action. On January 14, 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint restating and elaborating on the claims raised in the Complaint. The Amended Complaint sought compensatory and rescissory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. On February 13, 2020, the Court held a settlement hearing to consider a proposed settlement and certain objections filed by two current DBMG stockholders. The Court expressed concerns about certain terms of the proposed settlement and the parties requested additional time to evaluate potential modifications to the proposed settlement. On May 8, 2020, the parties filed with the Court a revised settlement agreement for all claims relating to the Amended Complaint. The Revised Settlement Framework provided for a settlement payment of $35.95 per share to a fund for the benefit of the former DBMG stockholders who tendered their shares in the 2014 tender offer other than stockholders who were defendants in the action or their immediate family members, officers of DBMG, or directors or officers of HC2. In total, the proposed settlement payment to the Tendered Stockholders applied to approximately 568,850 shares and totaled approximately $20.45 million. The Revised Settlement Framework provided that the amount received by the Tendered Stockholders would be reduced by the per share amount of any fee award to lead plaintiff's counsel. HC2's D&O insurers agreed to contribute approximately $12.38 million of this approximately $20.45 million settlement payment, and DBMG has agreed to fund the remaining approximately $8.07 million either through cash on hand or borrowing from a third-party lender. The Revised Settlement Framework also provided that HC2 would fund two types of payments to the owners of the 289,902 902 shares of DBMG common stock not owned by HC2 or its affiliates. The first payment of $2.51 per share, or approximately $0.7 million total, was intended to offset the indirect burden that the public DBMG stockholders arguably would bear (by virtue of their approximately 7.52% ownership of DBMG) from DBMG's funding of the approximately $8.07 million portion of the settlement payment to the Tendered Stockholders. The second payment of $1.00 per share, or approximately $0.3 million total, represented consideration for a full release of claims from the public DBMG stockholders related to the action and the implementation of the Revised Settlement Framework. The Revised Settlement Framework provides that HC2 would fund payments of $3.51 per share, or approximately $1.0 million total, to the public DBMG stockholders. On August 14, 2020, the Court entered a Final Order approving the Revised Settlement Framework, awarding the plaintiff's counsel fees and expenses totaling $5,795,886 out of the funds payable to the Tendered Stockholders, and awarding one of the objector's counsel fees and expenses totaling $50,000 out of the fee and expense award to plaintiff's counsel. The settlement of the action became final, and the settlement releases became effective, upon the expiration of the appeal period for the Final Order on September 14, 2020. As of October 12, 2020, the settlement distribution agents had distributed the settlement funds to the eligible former and present record holders of DBMG stock. HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2 Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HC2 HOLDINGS: Fair Value Investments Putative Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative stockholder class action suit entitled, Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.). On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated (FVI) filed a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against HC2 and certain of DBM Global Inc.'s current and former officers and directors, including current and former HC2 officers and directors AJ Stahl, Kenneth S. Courtis, Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone, Michael J. Sena, and Paul Voigt styled Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.). In the FVI Action, FVI alleges that HC2, in its capacity as DBMG's controlling stockholder, and DBMG's current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to DBMG and DBMG's minority stockholders by approving certain transactions that allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to HC2. FVI challenges the following transactions: (i) DBMG's payments to HC2 from 2016–present pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and HC2; (ii) DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing collateral for loans taken on by HC2; (iii) DBMG's issuance of dividends to its common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020; (iv) DBMG's issuance of preferred stock to HC2 to finance DBMG's 2018 acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial; and (v) HC2's appointment of directors to DBMG's board of directors by written consent in lieu of holding an annual stockholder meeting. HC2 believes the allegations in the FVI complaint are without merit, and HC2 intends to vigorously defend this litigation. HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2 Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HC2 HOLDINGS: Tera Class Action Concluded ----------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court entered an order closing the class action suit entitled, Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS. On April 10, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Tera v. HC2 Holdings Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0275-JRS. The complaint alleged that the Company's consent revocation materials (i) contain misleading disclosures relating to the Certificates of Designation, (ii) fail to disclose that a majority of the Board may approve the nominees set forth by Percy Rockdale LLC and certain of its affiliates, for purposes of the Certificates of Designation such that the Percy Rockdale nominees would be considered "Continuing Directors" and (iii) inaccurately state that electing the Percy Rockdale nominees will cause a Change of Control (as defined in the Certificates of Designation) under the Certificates of Designation because it will lead to a person or group obtaining the power to elect a majority of the members of the Board. The complaint sought (i) a declaration requiring the Board to approve the Percy Rockdale nominees for purposes of the Certificates of Designation, (ii) a declaration that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures and (iii) an injunction requiring the Board to issue additional disclosures relating to the Change of Control provisions in the Certificates of Designation. On April 19, 2020, the plaintiff amended his complaint to allege that the Supplement to the Consent Revocation Statement, filed with the SEC on April 17, 2020, contained misleading disclosures relating to the Certificates of Designation. The amended complaint sought, among other remedies, (i) a declaration that the Board breached its fiduciary duties by issuing misleading disclosures; (ii) a declaration that, if a Change of Control could be deemed to occur under the Certificates of Designation, that such Change of Control provisions are invalid and unenforceable under Delaware law; (iii) an injunction requiring the defendants to issue corrective disclosures; and (iv) an order enjoining the Board from relying upon consent revocations received to date. On April 20, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings. On April 15, 2020, the Board (with Mr. Philip A. Falcone Falcone recusing himself as a non-Independent Director) determined to approve the Percy Rockdale nominees, solely and specifically for the purposes of deeming them Continuing Directors pursuant to the Certificates of Designation, to avoid triggering, and to render inapplicable, such prong of the Change of Control definition. On April 17, 2020 and April 21, 2020, each of the holder of the Series A Preferred Stock and the holder of the Series A-2 Preferred Stock, respectively, and, in each case, entitled to give a waiver, agreed that such holder will not seek to exercise its right to require the Company to redeem the shares of such Series A Preferred Stock or Series A-2 Preferred Stock, as applicable, if such redemption right were to arise as a result of the outcome of the Consent Solicitation based on one of the Change of Control prongs of the Certificate of Designation (which prong may require the Company to make an offer to redeem the Preferred Stock if any person or "group" (within the meaning of Rules 13d-3 and 13d-5 under the Exchange Act) obtains the power to elect a majority of the members of the Board). Therefore, in light of the foregoing, if the Percy Rockdale nominees became a majority of the Board pursuant to Percy Rockdale's consent solicitation, the Company would not be required to offer to redeem the shares of the Series A Preferred Stock and the Series A-2 Preferred Stock. On April 23, 2020, the parties agreed that the waiver and additional disclosures, combined with the prior disclosures and approval of Percy Rockdale's nominees as Continuing Directors, mooted the need for expedition and a preliminary injunction hearing, and the parties informed the court that the plaintiff was withdrawing its request for expedition and a preliminary injunction. On May 14, 2020, the Company announced that it had reached a resolution of Percy Rockdale's consent solicitation. On May 6, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for an order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting a $2.5 million fee. On August 12, 2020, the parties informed the court that they had reached a resolution. That same day, the court entered an order closing the case. HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2 Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in Sorrano Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSEPH SORANNO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, successor in interest to HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-16218 (FLW) (LHG) (D. N.J.), Judge Freda F. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims against it; (ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Jury Demand; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on his breach of contract, the New Jersey Sales Representatives' Rights Act ("SRRA"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("WPL") claims. Plaintiff Soranno filed the putative class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of SRRA and WPL. The Plaintiff, a former HPS sales representative, alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him certain vested commissions for services he sold during his employment. The Defendant sells, among other things, card payment processing services to merchants and retailers. Since its creation in 1997, it has processed bank-issued Visa and Mastercard payments. The Defendant also provides other ancillary services to merchants. Relevant in the case, from December 2007 to July 2014, the Defendant acted as a sales agent for American Express ("AMEX"), a third-party that offered its own card payment processing services to eligible merchants known as the OnePoint card acceptance program and ESA. AMEX was obligated to pay the Defendant monthly commissions for a maximum of 60 months from the date the merchant began using AMEX to process payments. Upon the expiration of the 60-month period, AMEX had no further obligation to pay the Defendant commissions for OnePoint transactions, even if the merchants continued to use the service. In January 2007, the Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Relationship Manager ("RM"). In that capacity, the Plaintiff sold the Defendant's products and services, as well as third-party services such as OnePoint, to retail merchants. In exchange, he received commission-only compensation. With respect to compensation, the Defendant retained the right to modify the costs and methods used to calculate Sales Compensation to be earned for future sales with at least 30 days written notice to active RMs. However, the Sales Policy provides that HPS will not modify the costs or methods it uses to calculate Sales Compensation earned by an RM after Installation. The TM Agreement additionally entitles the Plaintiff to earn limited and contingent "Vested" rights to certain "Residual Commissions" on specific products and services he sold during his employment after his employment ended. In December 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from employment with the Defendant. Consistent with the TM Agreement, the Defendant continued to pay the Plaintiff his vested commissions after his departure, in the same manner as when he was an active employee. In 2013, shortly after the Plaintiff's resignation, AMEX informed the Defendant that it would be ending OnePoint and implementing a new service called OptBlue. On Aug. 2, 2013, the Defendant entered into an agreement with AMEX to offer OptBlue services which required the Defendant to process AMEX payments itself and charge its own fees on top of AMEX's rates. Essentially, under the OptBlue program, the Defendant processes AMEX transactions in the same manner it processed Visa and Mastercard transactions. In the wake of the transition to OptBlue, the Defendant states that OptBlue differs from OnePoint because it is a Primary Service that generates Margin in the same way as Visa and Mastercard. It interprets the TM Agreement as not requiring it to pay Residual Commissions on margin from OptBlue transactions. Nevertheless, it decided to pay Residual Commissions to active Sales Employees who were employed as of July 2014 for transactions processed by merchants who transitioned from OnePoint to OptBlue, which were calculated in the same way as other primary services, like Visa and Mastercard. It is undisputed that the Defendant ceased compensating the Plaintiff for AMEX transactions processed by his merchant in January 2015. On Oct. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action against the Defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County, alleging claims of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Shortly thereafter, on Nov. 16, 2018, the Defendant removed the Plaintiff's complaint to the Court based on the diversity of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Following removal, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which the Court granted on July 26, 2019. The Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Complaint, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging claims of (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and (4) violation of the New Jersey Sales Representatives' Rights Act. On April 24, 2020, the Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on his breach of contract, WPL, and SRRA claims. His motion also seeks to invalidate the jury trial waiver set forth in the TM Agreement. That same day, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on all the Plaintiff's claims and to strike the Plaintiff's demand for a jury trial. Judge Wolfson granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. She granted summary judgment in the Defendant's favor on the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment, SRRA, and WPL claims, and denied on the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Among other things, Judge Wolfson finds that the Plaintiff cannot proceed with an unjust enrichment claim because there is no dispute that the TM Agreement and Sales Policy govern the parties' dispute. As the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim stems solely from the contractual relationship between the parties, his unjust enrichment claim fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff's WPL claim fails because the WPL does not cover post-termination commissions. While the New Jersey Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, the New Jersey Appellate Division, albeit in an unpublished opinion, has held that the WPL applies only to wages earned by an employee before the termination of his employment. Moreover, the plain language of the statute makes clear that the WPL is meant to protect only those wages which an employee earned before the termination of his employment. The Residual Commissions sought by the Plaintiff are the result of a unique contractual provision between him and the Defendant that is not plainly covered by the SRRA because the commissions in question were not yet "earned" at the time the Plaintiff resigned. While the SRRA is a remedial statute that should be liberally construed, the Judge cannot extend its coverage to a situation that was not clearly contemplated by the Legislature. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's SRRA claim cannot survive summary judgment and is dismissed, rules the Court. Judge Wolfson also granted the Defendant's motion to strike the Plaintiff's demand for jury trial. The TM Agreement specifically provides that the Plaintiff and HPS irrevocably waive any right to trial by jury in any suit, action or proceeding under, or in connection with or to enforce the Agreement. It is undisputed that the Plaintiff signed the contract and admitted at his deposition that he read and understood the jury trial waiver provision and had the opportunity to consult with his own counsel prior to signing the agreement. While the waiver is not in different or larger lettering that the rest of the TM Agreement, the clause is underlined and clearly described as "Waiver of Jury Trial." Considering these factors, the Judge finds the jury waiver to be enforceable. Finally, Judge Wolfson granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the Defendant takes the view that extrinsic evidence is not necessary to interpret the parties' agreement, it does not put forth any evidence on the issue of intent. Even so, the Judge cannot resolve the factual issue of the parties' intent on a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment on the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, in favor of either the Plaintiff or the Defendant, is inappropriate at this time. In denying both motions for summary judgment, the Judge notes that it appears the parties did not adequately take discovery on the issue of intent under these circumstances. To the extent such discovery is needed, the parties may apply to the Magistrate Judge for limited additional discovery. The Plaintiff's breach of contract claim will proceed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y45n3cm3 from Leagle.com. HECLA MINING: Continues to Defend New York Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Hecla Mining Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 24, 2019, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Hecla and certain of its executive officers, one of whom is also a director. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from March 19, 2018 through and including May 8, 2019, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of the individual defendants, made certain material false and misleading statements and omitted certain material information regarding Hecla's Nevada Operations unit. The complaint alleges that these misstatements and omissions artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors. A second suit was filed on June 19, 2019, alleging virtually identical claims. Hecla said, "We cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Hecla Mining Company, together with its subsidiaries, discovers, acquires, develops, and produces precious and base metal properties worldwide. The company offers lead, zinc, and bulk flotation concentrates to custom smelters and brokers; and unrefined gold and silver bullion bars to precious metals traders. Hecla Mining Company was founded in 1891 and is headquartered in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. HOSOPO CORP: Settlement Proposed in TCPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Paronich Law, P.C. and CW Law Group PC announce that a settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit alleging that HOSOPO Corporation d/b/a Horizon Solar ("HOSOPO") made or caused to be made unsolicited telemarketing calls. HOSOPO denies wrongdoing and liability, and both sides disagree on how much, if anything, the Class could have recovered after trial. The Court has not decided which side is right. You are included in the settlement as a "Settlement Class Member" if you fit into the following definition: (1) All persons in the United States who are the users or subscribers of the telephone numbers identified by Flowmedia in Jamie Williams's affidavit as being called for Horizon Solar (2) using the ViciDialer dialing system (3) between October 16, 2017 and December 8, 2017. The Settlement provides $800,000 to pay: (1) claims of eligible Settlement Class Members; (2) a Fees, Costs, and Expenses Award to Settlement Class Counsel; (3) a Service Payment to Plaintiff; and (4) costs of Settlement administration and notice. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you are eligible to receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund by timely and validly submitting a Claim Form. The value of a Settlement Class Member's individual award will depend upon the number of Settlement Class Members who file valid Claim Forms. To receive a Settlement award, you must timely complete and submit a valid Claim Form by December 9, 2020. Claim Forms are available at www.HorizonCallsSettlement.com. If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by December 9, 2020, or you won't be able to sue HOSOPO or others involved with the calls at issue about the legal claims in the Action ever again. If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it by December 9, 2020. For complete information visit www.HorizonCallsSettlement.com or call 1-866-714-9374. [GN] IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid to Dismiss Newman Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit entitled, David Newman v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 2020-0505 (Delaware Chancery Court), is pending. On June 24, 2020, a shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in Delaware state court against then IAC/InterActiveCorp (now Match Group, Inc.), then IAC Holdings, Inc. (now IAC/InterActiveCorp), IAC's Chairman and Senior Executive Barry Diller, former Match Group (as a nominal defendant only), and the ten members of former Match Group's Board of Directors at the time of the Separation, challenging, on behalf of a putative class of then Match Group public shareholders, the agreed-upon terms of the Separation. The gravamen of the complaint is that the terms of the Separation are unfair to former Match Group and unduly beneficial to IAC as a result of undue influence by IAC and Mr. Diller over the then Match Group directors who unanimously approved the transaction. The complaint asserts direct and derivative claims: (i) for breach of fiduciary duty against IAC and Mr. Diller as former Match Group's controlling shareholders, (ii) for breach of fiduciary duty against the Match Group directors who unanimously approved the Separation, (iii) for breach of contract (i.e., a provision of former Match Group's charter), (iv) for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (v) for tortious interference with contract against IAC. The complaint seeks various declarations and damages in an unspecified amount. On September 24, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. IAC believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them. IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a media and Internet company in the United States and internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments. IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New York, New York. INOVIO PHARMA: McDermid Class Action Ongoing -------------------------------------------- Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim. On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint, McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming the company and J. Joseph Kim, the company's Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its development of a vaccine for COVID-19 in its public disclosures in violation of certain federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. On June 18, 2020, the court appointed Manuel Williams to serve as lead plaintiff. On August 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, naming the company and three of its officers as defendants. On September 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed his first amended complaint, naming the company and three of its officers as defendants. Defendants will file a motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint on November 5, 2020. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products. Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Status Due Feb. 2021 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on February 17, 2021. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020. Currently, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on February 17, 2021. Interactive said, "Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Chauhan Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported shareholder class action, styled Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. On November 5, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, styled Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7, 2020, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company's New Drug Application for Ocaliva (OCA) for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and the use of Ocaliva in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), as well as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. Intercept said, "While the Company believes that it has a number of valid defenses to the claims described above and intends to vigorously defend itself, the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or whether they will be material to the Company. Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to the Company relating to the matters is not possible at this time." Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases, including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC") and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva. Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and Canada. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Liu Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has been filed in Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as the Company's operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company. On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. On September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint. On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment and several orders entered in this action. Separately, on December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case above. In addition, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v. Pruzanski, et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case above. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases, including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva. Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and Canada. INTERFACE INC: Frank Cruz Alerts of Jan. 21 Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Nov. 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Interface, Inc. ("Interface" or the "Company") securities between March 2, 2018 and September 28, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Interface investors have until January 11, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On April 24, 2019, Interface revealed that in November 2017, it had received a request for information and documents from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") "in connection with an investigation into the Company's historical quarterly earnings per share ["EPS"] calculations and rounding practices during the period 2014-2017." The Company further disclosed that it had "received subpoenas from the SEC in February 2018, July 2018 and April 2019 requesting additional documents and information" and that Interface had conducted an internal investigation into these issues, at the SEC's request. On this news, Interface's stock price fell $1.43 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $15.66 per share on April 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors. On September 28, 2020, the SEC issued an enforcement order following its investigation into Interface's historical quarterly EPS calculations and rounding practices. The Company agreed to pay a $5 million fine to resolve the matter and was ordered to cease and desist from violating the federal securities laws. The SEC also disclosed that "Interface employees caused Interface to produce documents in response to Commission investigative requests that were suggestive of contemporaneous support for journal entries that, in truth, did not exist at the time the entries were recorded," and that they had altered certain documents after the SEC's investigation initiated. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.20 per share, or 3.13%, over the following two trading sessions to close at $6.18 per share on September 29, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Interface had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2) consequently, Interface, inter alia, reported artificially inflated income and EPS in 2015 and 2016; (3) Interface and certain of its employees were under investigation by the SEC with respect to the foregoing issues since at least as early as November 2017, had impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope of the Company's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC investigation; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Interface securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 11, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Interface securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com[/url]. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] INTERNATIONAL MONEY: Paid $2.9MM to Settle Sawyer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ International Money Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the $2.9 million settlement amount in the settled putative class action suit initiated by Stuart Sawyer, was paid to the settlement fund in October 2020. On May 30, 2019, Stuart Sawyer filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting a claim under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, et seq., based on allegations that since May 30, 2015, the Company had sent text messages to class members' wireless telephones without their consent. Following a mediation held on October 7, 2019, the Company and the plaintiff entered into a term sheet providing the general terms for the settlement of the action, which was memorialized in a definitive Settlement Agreement on March 16, 2020 subject to subsequent Court approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for resolution of Mr. Sawyer's Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims and the claims of a class of similarly situated individuals, as defined in the complaint, who received text messages from the Company during the period May 30, 2015 through October 7, 2019, and for the creation of a $3.25 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The Settlement Agreement also established procedures for the notification of claimants and the processing of claims. The settlement fund will be managed by a duly-appointed settlement administrator which will be authorized to communicate with class members, process claims and make payments from the fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the final judgment in the case. No amount of the settlement fund will revert to the Company; instead, any unclaimed funds will be sent to a consumer advocacy organization approved by the Court. The remaining balance of the amount payable under the Settlement Agreement of approximately $2.9 million is included in accrued and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2020. The $2.9 million was paid to the settlement fund in October 2020. International Money Express, Inc., through its subsidiary, operates as a money remittance services company in the United States, Latin America, Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean. The company offers remittance services, including a suite of ancillary financial processing solutions and payment services. It provides services through sending and paying agents and company-operated stores, as well as through online and Internet-enabled mobile devices. The company was formerly known as FinTech Acquisition Corp. II. International Money Express, Inc. is headquartered in Miami, Florida. J2 GLOBAL: Affiliates Moved to Decertify Class in DN Suit --------------------------------------------------------- J2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that J2 Global affiliates have moved to decertify the class in the suit initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A. On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class action lawsuit against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2 Global affiliates. On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court with instructions to return the case to state court. On January 29, 2019, after further appeals were exhausted, the case was remanded to the Arkansas state court. On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016. Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order. On July 15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On November 26, 2019 the court denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On December 20, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. On May 21, 2020, the court denied J2 Global affiliates' motion to dismiss. On August 11, 2020, the court approved an opt-in class notice. Notice has not yet been issued and the J2 Global affiliates have moved to decertify the class. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media. The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc. and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2 Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. J2 GLOBAL: Garcia's Putative Securities Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- J2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Jeffrey Garcia. On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action lawsuit against J2 Global in the Central District of California (20-cv-06906), alleging violations of federal securities laws. J2 Global intends to defend against the lawsuit. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media. The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc. and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2 Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. JONES LANG: Class Cert. Bid in WDES Suit Denied Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WACKER DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUITES, LLC, on behalf of itself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS (ILLINOIS), LP, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-5492 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Sunil R. Harjani of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied without prejudice (i) WDES' motion for class certification, and (ii) JLL's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Kaestner as to damages. Plaintiff WDES brings the proposed class action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), alleging that Defendant JLL conspired with three labor unions to force commercial tenants of Chicago Loop office buildings managed by JLL to hire union only contractors and movers. WDES alleges that the cost difference between union and non-union labor in the Chicago Loop is substantial and the conspiracy caused it to overpay for contractors and movers. JLL manages office buildings in the Chicago Loop, including 125 S. Wacker Drive. WDES leased the third floor of that building between August 2005 and December 2017. WDES alleges that it was required to use union contractors and movers when it performed renovations to its leased space in 2014 and 2017 and moved office furnishings into its space in 2015 as the result of an illegal conspiracy/agreement between JLL and three labor unions to force tenants into hiring union-only movers and union-only building trades contractors in violation of RICO. LL allegedly conspired with the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399 of the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International Union, Local 1, and Teamsters Local 705. The first two of these unions have collective bargaining agreements with JLL governing the terms of employment of its building engineers and janitors, respectively. The third union, Local 705, represents movers and does not have a collective bargaining agreement with JLL. WDES now moves to certify a class of tenants at 20 office buildings managed by JLL who were required to hire union contractors or movers. In opposing commonality, JLL argues that a common answer to WDES' first proposed common question -- whether JLL enforced the union-only requirement at class buildings -- will not drive the resolution of the case as a whole because that conduct, by itself, is not illegal. Magistrate Judge Harjani finds that WDES does not support its enterprise/conspiracy allegation with evidence. Because WDES provides no proof that the union-only restriction is imposed as a result of an agreement between JLL and the Unions to potentially tie all the claims together, it has failed to sufficiently demonstrate commonality as to its RICO claims. Given its unsupported allegation regarding an enterprise/agreement between JLL and the Unions to enforce the union-only requirement together with JLL's specific evidence showing that JLL enforced the union-only rule pursuant to a mandate from the building owners, WDES has failed to satisfy its burden of offering "significant proof" of a RICO enterprise and conspiracy that violates RICO. WDES has thus not met is burden of establishing commonality, and its motion for class certification is denied on this basis at the present time. Based on the evidence currently before the Court, the Magistrate Judge holds that it is not yet "practicable" to conclusively resolve the commonality issue. WDES has not presented supporting evidence of a JLL-Unions conspiracy, and the Judge cannot conduct the rigorous analysis required to determine whether WDES has satisfied the commonality requirement of Rule 23. Whether class certification is appropriate in the case is better explored on a more developed factual record. WDES has conducted some discovery but discovery is still ongoing. In situations such as this, where the decision on class certification turns primarily on the overlap between the requirements of Rule 23 and the merits on the case, it is more prudent to allow the Plaintiff to further develop its factual record before conclusively deciding a class certification motion. It is entirely possible, given the ability to utilize the full discovery schedule set by the Court, that WDES can overcome the current deficit and allow the Court to conduct a more substantive analysis of the commonality requirement. Whether that is possible, however, will not be known until both parties have had the opportunity to complete further discovery. In addition, in light of the present ruling, the Judge defers consideration of whether WDES has satisfied the remaining requirements of Rule 23 as well as JLL's motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Robert Kaestner. If the class certification motion is refiled, WDES must address the evidence that supports each element of Rule 23 in order to satisfy the Supreme Court's admonition in Walmart. Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Harjani denied without prejudice (i) WDES' motion for class certification, and (ii) JLL's motion to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Robert Kaestner. The Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report identifying what discovery remains and providing a proposed schedule for the completion of that discovery. The parties are given leave to refile the present motions once further discovery has been completed. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2xk2zux from Leagle.com. JP MORGAN: Banks Can Pay 0% Interest on Escrow Acct, 9th Cir. Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elliot Mincberg, writing for People for the American Way, reports that Trump Ninth Circuit judge Ryan Nelson wrote a 2-1 ruling that reversed a district court and ruled that national banks can pay zero interest to consumers on escrow accounts related to loans they purchased from savings associations, despite a California law requiring payment of interest. The September 2020 decision was in McShannock v. JP Morgan Chase Bank. Under California law, when homeowners pay money into escrow accounts used by banks to pay real estate taxes and for other purposes, they are entitled to receive at least 2% interest on those funds. JP Morgan Chase Bank acquired and took over all loans issued by Washington Mutual, a federal savings association that failed during the 2008 financial crisis, but refused to pay any interest on those escrow accounts. A class action was filed against Chase by California mortgage loan customers seeking to recover those interest payments. Chase claimed it did not have to pay such interest because the savings association that had made the loans did not have to pay interest under the federal Home Owners Loan Act (HOLA) and moved to dismiss the case. A federal district court denied the motion. It explained that national banks like Chase are required to pay such interest, and that it could not avoid such payments for the period that it held the loans by trying to rely on HOLA, which does not apply to national banks. Chase appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Trump judge Ryan Nelson wrote a 2-1 decision reversing the district court and ruling that Chase could disregard California law and pay no interest to California homeowners on escrow accounts. Even though the Ninth Circuit had previously held that federal law does not prevent California from requiring national banks like Chase to pay interest on escrow accounts, Nelson held that because the loans at issue were "originated by savings associations" that themselves were exempted from paying interest because of HOLA, the banks also did not have to pay interest after they acquired the loans and required consumers to pay into escrow accounts. Judge James Gwin strongly dissented. He explained that the "statutory text" of HOLA "gives no suggestion" that its exemption from paying interest on escrow accounts applied to banks that purchase loans from savings associations. The majority "justifies its disregard" of the statute's text, he went on, by suggesting that treating banks differently would make sales of savings association loans more difficult, "even though Congress reached the directly opposite policy judgment" in the Dodd-Frank Act. In any event, Gwin continued, judges "are not legislators charged with weighing the costs and benefit of the escrow interest requirement," but instead should make their decisions based on the "actual text" of the laws and regulations involved in the case, which the majority failed to do. Fortunately, as Judge Gwin pointed out, the harmful effect of the majority's decision will be limited, since federal law now provides that interest must be paid on escrow accounts with respect to loans by national banks and federal savings associations "after January 21, 2013." But for homeowners who took out earlier loans as in this case, Trump judge Nelson's decision means that big banks will be able to use their escrow accounts as the banks please without paying any interest on these substantial sums. [GN] K12 INC: Faces Baig Suit Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------- ENNIFER BAIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K12 INC.; NATHANIEL A. DAVIS; and TIMOTHY MEDINA, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01528 (Dec. 11, 2020) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class that purchased or otherwise acquired K12 securities between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class period, the 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) K12 lacked the technological capabilities, infrastructures, and expertise to support the increased demand for virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic; (ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of K12's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. K12 Inc. is a technology-based education company. The Company offers proprietary curriculum, software, and educational services created for online delivery to students in kindergarten through 12th grade, or K-12. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N. Glebe Road, Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 - and - Jermy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative securities class action which was filed in California federal court, but was transferred to in the New York federal court. Beginning in March 2017, putative shareholder class actions were filed against Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally alleged violations of the federal securities laws based Kandi's disclosure in March 2017 that its financial statements for the years 2014, 2015 and the first three quarters of 2016 would need to be restated, and seek damages on behalf of putative classes of shareholders who purchased or acquired Kandi's securities prior to March 13, 2017. Kandi moved to dismiss the remaining cases, all of which were pending in the New York federal court, and that motion was granted by an order entered on September 30, 2019, and the time to appeal has run. In June 2020, a similar but separate putative securities class action was filed against Kandi and certain of its current and former directors and officers in California federal court. In September 2020, this action was transferred to the New York federal court and remains pending. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. manufactures electric vehicle products, EV parts, and off-road vehicles for sale in the Chinese and the global markets. The Company conducts its primary business operations through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Zhejiang Kandi Vehicles Co., Ltd., Kandi Vehicles' wholly and partially-owned subsidiaries, and SC Autosports LLC ("SC Autosports", d/b/a Kandi America). The Company is based in Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province, People's Republic of China. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Valdes Sues Over 28.34% Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ Leonel Valdes, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., HU XIAOMING, JEHN MING LIM, and ZHU XIAOYING, Case No. 2:20-cv-06042-JMA-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than the Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Kandi securities between March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did not have an arms length relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S. Investors". Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a dozen former employees and business partners, and review of numerous litigation documents and international public records", the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. Following publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on November 30, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Kandi securities at artificially inflated prices. Kandi was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Jinhua, China. The Company, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures, and commercializes EV products and parts and off-road vehicles in China and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com LOGMEIN INC: Shareholder Class Action Against Firm Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ lawstreetmedia.com reports that a federal judge sitting in Boston, Mass. dismissed a shareholder class action filed on behalf of the former shareholders of LogMeIn, Inc. The suit against the company and several of its officers charged the defendants with violating federal securities laws. The three lead plaintiffs' claims centered on LogMeIn's acquisition of GetGo, Inc. and the transition of GetGo customers from monthly to annual billing plans. The court's opinion and order permitted the plaintiffs leave to amend a small subset of their allegations. According to the order, LogMeIn is "a Boston-based provider of cloud-based software services used by mobile professionals to work remotely and IT service providers to manage computers and servers." It reportedly generates revenue chiefly from subscription fees charged to individual consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. In July 2016, LogMeIn announced that it was planning to acquire GetGo, a subsidiary of LogMeIn's biggest rival, Citrix Inc., and with it GetGo's "GoTo family of products," including GoToMeeting, GoToWebinar, and a handful of others. The order reported that "the transition did not go particularly smoothly." The shareholders' complaint principally relied on information supplied by five confidential witnesses, who varied in their seniority and areas of expertise within LogMeIn's corporate structure. According to the court, "the common theme espoused by the (confidential witnesses was) that LogMeIn management bungled the transition and lost customers as a result." In turn, the plaintiffs alleged securities fraud in violation of both Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for misrepresentations made prior to and after the acquisition. Specifically, the shareholders contended that the defendants "knew that the transition was proving challenging throughout the class period based on their own internal review of anticipated (customer) cancellations, yet failed to disclose that fact to investors, as made evident by their eventual admission that (customer) retention rates had been declining for the duration of the class period." The defendants argued that the court should dismiss the complaint because it failed to plead facts that satisfy the first two elements of a Section 10(b) claim, that any statement was false or misleading and scienter. The court analyzed factual allegations setting forth LogMeIn's supposed misrepresentations, like statements made during earnings calls by company officers concerning its financial welfare. As to the overwhelming majority of factual allegations, the court held that even if it assumed that they were true, the complaint did not adequately allege that they were fraudulent. The court explained that most of the challenged statements were either not material misrepresentations or omissions, were mere puffery, or were unactionable forward-looking statements. As to scienter, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to "plead sufficient facts to support the conclusion that the Company acted with the requisite state of mind." Finally, because Section 20(a) claims are derivative of Section 10(b) claim, the court held that the plaintiff's 20(a) claim fell alongside the latter. The court noted that because allegations concerning whether customers were being transitioned to the new payment regime against their will presented "a close call," the plaintiffs were permitted to amend their complaint within 21 days with respect to those allegations only. The plaintiffs are represented by Glancy Prongay & Murray, Block & Leviton, and The Rosen Law Firm. LogMeIn is represented by Latham & Watkins LLP. [GN] MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (MIC) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company's motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint is still pending. On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018. Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018. The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures concerning the Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability of the Company's dividend to stockholders. On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel. On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action complaint. In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock. The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as defendants. On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments. The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New York. MARS IT CORP: Mendez Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MARS IT CORP. The case is styled as Jesus Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARS IT CORP., Case No. 5:20-cv-08813-NC (N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mars It Corp -- https://marssg.com/ -- is located in Waukesha, Wisconsin and is part of the information technology services industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MASSACHUSETTS: Thousands Back Lawsuit Against Flu Vaccine Mandate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaylee Pugliese at westernmassnews.com reports that a group of about 11,000 people in Massachusetts is filing a class-action lawsuit against Gov. Charlie Baker and the state against the mandated flu vaccine. According to a statement from the organizer of the lawsuit, Vincent Delaney, he finds the mandate "unconstitutional." The group's campaign is called "FLU YOU BAKER," according to the statement. The mandate requires children and young adults ages six months to 30 years old who attend state childcare or schools from pre-kindergarten through the college level to get an annual influenza vaccine by December 31 to be able to go to school in January 2021. "Mr. Delaney and FLU YOU BAKER parents oppose the mandate and government overreach, stating the choice to vaccinate resides with the parents and their family physicians," according to the statement. "The state's decision to deny education on the basis of an annual vaccine requirement violates the rights of citizens granted by the Constitution." The law firms of Thomas O. Mason, Patrick Leduc, and Luke Lirot will represent the FLU YOU BAKER plaintiffs, according to the statement. [GN] MATCH GROUP: Candelore Suit Stayed Pending Appeal in Kim Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has issued an order staying the class claims in the case, Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162, pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the appeal related to the case, Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093. On May 28, 2015, a putative statewide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act) by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, Tinder filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the complaint. On October 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion sustaining Tinder's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, ruling that the age-based pricing differential for Tinder Plus subscriptions did not violate California law in essence because offering a discount to users under age 30 was neither invidious nor unreasonable in light of that age group's generally more limited financial means. On December 29, 2015, in accordance with its ruling, the court entered judgment dismissing the action. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the judgment, and the parties thereafter briefed the appeal. On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal, ruling that the lower court had erred in sustaining Tinder's demurrer because the complaint, as pleaded, stated a cognizable claim for violation of the Unruh Act. Because the company believes that the appellate court's reasoning was flawed as a matter of law and runs afoul of binding California precedent, on March 12, 2018, Tinder filed a petition with the California Supreme Court seeking interlocutory review of the Court of Appeal's decision. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied the petition. The case was then returned to the trial court for further proceedings. In a related development, on June 19, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims and pending in federal district court in California, the court issued an order granting final approval of a class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. See Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (U.S. District Court, Central District of California). On June 21, 2019, the Kim court entered judgment in accordance with its prior order. Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit. Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is fully briefed and awaiting a hearing for oral argument. On September 13, 2019, Tinder filed a motion to stay the Candelore case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the appeal of the court-approved settlement in the Kim case. On November 13, 2019, the court issued an order staying the class claims in the Candelore case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim appeal. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a shareholder securities class action suit entitled, Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C. On September 25, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against Former Match Group. FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02281-K (N.D. Tex.). On October 3, 2019, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in federal court in Texas against Former Match Group, its CEO, and its CFO, on behalf of a class of acquirers of Former Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019. Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division). Invoking the allegations in the FTC lawsuit, the complaint alleges (i) that Defendants failed to disclose to investors that Former Match Group induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions using misleading advertisements, that Former Match Group made it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as a result, Former Match Group was likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that Former Match Group lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Former Match Group's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 6, 2020, the court approved a stipulation appointing two lead plaintiffs as well as co-lead counsel. On April 14, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. Former Match Group filed a motion to dismiss on June 12, 2020. Plaintiff's response was filed on August 26, 2020, and Former Match Group filed its reply on September 25, 2020. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them." Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MDL 2311: Court Awards Counsel Fees & Incentives in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Sean F. Cox of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted End-Payor Plaintiffs ("EPPs")'s Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Payment of Incentive Awards to Class Representatives in Connection with Round Four Settlements in IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. In Re: Heater Control Panels In Re: Occupant Safety Systems In Re: Switches In Re: Ignition Coils In Re: Steering Angle Sensors In Re: Electric Powered Steering Assemblies In Re: Fuel Injection Systems In Re: Valve Timing Control Devices In Re: Air Conditioning Systems In Re: Automotive Constant Velocity Joint Boot Products In Re: Automotive Hoses In Re: Shock Absorbers In Re: Body Sealing Products In Re: Interior Trim Products In Re: Automotive Brake Hoses In Re: Exhaust Systems In Re: Ceramic Substrates In Re: Power Window Switches In Re: Automotive Steel Tubes In Re: Side-Door Latches. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: End-Payor Actions, Case No. 12-md-02311, Case Nos. 2:12-cv-00403, 2:12-cv-00603, 2:13-cv-01303, 2:13-cv-01403, 2:13-cv-01603, 2:13-cv-01903, 2:13-cv-02203, 2:13-cv-02503, 2:13-cv-02703, 2:14-cv-02903, 2:15-cv-03203, 2:15-cv-03303, 2:16-cv-03403, 2:16-cv-03503, 2:16-cv-03603, 2:16-cv-03703, 2:16-cv-03803, 2:16-cv-03903, 2:16-cv-04003, 2:17-cv-04303 (E.D. Mich.). Judge Cox held a hearing by video conference on Sept. 17, 2020 to consider the motion. He has granted final approval to the settlements referred to by the parties and the Court as the Round 4 Settlements in its Order Granting Final Approval of the Round 4 Settlements. The Judge has considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant case law and authority relating to the motion. He concludes that awards of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses to Co-Lead Counsel from the litigation fund, and incentive awards to be paid out of the proceeds of the Round 4 Settlements are appropriate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 54(d)(2). Accordingly, Judge Cox granted an award of attorneys' fees to the Co-Lead Counsel equal to 22% of the Round 4 Settlements including a pro rata share of the interest earned thereon, excluding the yet to be determined TKH settlement amount. The award, taken together with the prior awards from the Round 1 Settlements, Round 2 Settlements, and Round 3 Settlements will result in a total award equal to 22.05% of the proceeds of the four rounds of settlements, excluding the TKH settlement. The Round 4 attorneys' fees, totaling $40,470,760, together with a pro rata share of the interest earned thereon, will be paid on a pro rata basis from the net settlement funds provided by each of the Round 4 Settlements currently before the Court. The Co-Lead Counsel is authorized to allocate the attorneys' fees awarded among the EPP Class Counsel who performed work on behalf of EPPs in accordance with the Co-Lead Counsel's assessment of each firm's contribution to the prosecution and settlement of these actions. The Co-Lead Counsel has also requested a total of $565,000 in incentive awards to be paid to 59 named Class Representatives. The Co-Lead Counsel hassplit those Class Representatives into two groups based on their contributions to the cases. Group 1 is comprised of the following five individuals: (1) Jane Butler; (2) Melissa Croom; (3) Theresia Dillard; (4) James Phelps; and (5) Bonnie Vander Meulen. Co-Lead Counsel have proposed that each of these individuals would receive a single $5,000 award per person. Group 2 is comprised of the following 54 individuals: (1) Ifeoma Adams; (2) Halley Ascher; (3) Gregory Asken; (4) Melissa Barron; (5) Kimberly Bennett; (6) David Bernstein; (7) Ron Blau; (8) Tenisha Burgos; (9) Kent Busek; (10) Jennifer Chase; (11) Rita Cornish; (12) Nathan Croom; (13) Lori Curtis; (14) Jessica DeCastro; (15) Alena Farrell; (16) Jane Fitzgerald; (17) Frances H. Gammell-Roach; (18) Carroll Gibbs; (19) Dori Gilels; (20) Jason Grala; (21) Ian Groves; (22) Curtis Gunnerson; (23) Paul Gustafson; (24) Tom Halverson; (25) Curtis Harr; (26) Andrew Hedlund; (27) Gary Arthur Herr; (28) John W. Hollingsworth; (29) Carol Ann Kashishian; (30) Elizabeth Kaufman; (31) Robert P. Klingler; (32) Kelly Klosterman; (33) James E. Marean; (34) Michelle McGinn; (35) Rebecca Lynn Morrow; (36) Edward T. Muscara; (37) Stacey R. Nickell; (38) Sophie O'Keefe-Zelman; (39) Roger D. Olson; (40) William Dale Picotte; (41) Whitney Porter; (42) Cindy Prince; (43) Janne Rice; (44) Robert M. Rice, Jr.; (45) Darrel Senior; (46) Meetesh Shah; (47) Darcy C. Sherman; (48) Erica J. Shoaf; (49) Arthur Stukey; (50) Kathleen A. Tawney; (51) Jane Taylor; (52) Keith Uehara; (53) Michael Wick; and (54) Phillip G. Young. The Co-Lead Counsel have proposed that each of these individuals would receive a single $10,000 award per person. After reviewing the request for incentive awards, Judge Cox finds that the awards requested are reasonable. The Class Representatives provided discovery and assistance in a litany of cases, sometimes in as many as 41 cases. These incentive awards, totaling $565,000, will be paid on a pro rata basis from the net settlement funds provided by each of the Round 4 Settlements currently before the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y68xv6f6 from Leagle.com. MDL 2389: $35MM Facebook IPO Securities Suit Deal Approval Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: Facebook, Inc., IPO Class Action Settlement, Case No. 18-3845 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision approving the settlement of a multi-district securities class action. Objector-Appellant James J. Hayes, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's decision approving the settlement of a multi-district securities class action. Several institutional and individual Plaintiffs, on behalf of similarly situated investors, sued Facebook, several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters of Facebook's 2012 initial public offering ("IPO"), claiming that they misled investors about Facebook's revenue prior to the IPO in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The district court appointed certain institutional investors as Lead Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. It later certified two subclasses: an institutional investor subclass and an individual retail investor subclass, and appointed certain individual plaintiffs as Class Representatives of the retail investor subclass. After years of litigation, the parties settled the action for $35 million. In August and September 2018, Hayes filed pro se objections to the settlement, primarily arguing that the Lead Plaintiffs erred in failing to raise fraud claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against one of the underwriter defendants, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC. Hayes had previously contacted the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel, in 2015, protesting their failure to raise Exchange Act claims in the action; counsel responded that they had declined to bring such claims for strategic reasons. The district court rejected Hayes' objections and approved the settlement in November 2018. The Second Circuit finds that the fistrict court considered all the relevant factors in its thorough Nov. 26, 2018 opinion approving the settlement. On appeal, Hayes does not challenge the court's holding that the settlement was procedurally and substantively fair. Instead, he primarily reiterates his argument that the Lead Plaintiffs and Class Counsel should have raised fraud claims against Morgan Stanley pursuant to the Exchange Act. But, as the district court correctly held, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Class Counsel acted well within their discretion in choosing not to raise such claims. Further, Hayes knew since at least October 2015 that the Lead Plaintiffs were not raising Exchange Act claims, and he could have brought an individual action raising such a claim if he so wished. Hayes also argues that there was a conflict of interest between the Lead Plaintiffs and the retail investor subclass because only the retail investor subclass could raise his proposed Exchange Act claims. As an initial matter, Hayes failed to timely raise the argument in district court, raising it for the first time in a letter filed after the settlement hearing and over a month after objections were due. Further, the Class Representatives included class members from both the institutional investor subclass and the individual retail subclass. In any event, the Court has previously held that the presence of potential claims under both Exchange Act and Securities Act claims in the same action does not create a "fundamental conflict." Finally, Hayes argues, for the first time on appeal, that the Lead Plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their Securities Act claims. But the argument is meritless because the Lead Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that they had purchased Facebook stock, the Defendants' misleading statements resulted in a decline of that stock's value, and that injury was redressable through damages under the Securities Act. The Second Circuit has considered all of Hayes's remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, it affirmed the judgment of the district court. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Sept. 23, 2020 Summary Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2rejgus from Leagle.com. JOHN JAMES RIZIO-HAMILTON -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- (Salvatore J. Graziano -- salvatore@blbglaw.com -- on the brief), Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY; Thomas A. Dubbs, James W. Johnson, Thomas G. Hoffman, Jr., Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Frank R. Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New York, NY; Nicholas Diamand, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees CHARLES S. DUGGAN -- charles.duggan@davispolk.com -- (James P. Rouhandeh -- rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- Andrew Ditchfield -- andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com -- on the brief), Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY; Andrew B. Clubok, Susan E. Engel, Samir Deger-Sen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees. James J. Hayes, pro se, Annandale, VA, for Objector-Appellant. METLIFE INC: Bid to Approve Notice of Proposed Settlement Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiff in City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12, 2012), filed with the district court a motion to approve notice of the proposed settlement to the classes. Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of a class of persons who either purchased MetLife, Inc. common shares between February 9, 2011 and October 6, 2011, or purchased or acquired MetLife, Inc. common stock in the Company's August 3, 2010 offering or the Company's March 4, 2011 offering. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933, as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in insurance benefits that should have purportedly been paid to beneficiaries or escheated to the states. The parties reached an agreement on a class settlement of the case, and on June 17, 2020, plaintiff filed with the district court a motion to approve notice of the proposed settlement to the classes. The Company has accrued the full amount of the settlement payment. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: MLIC Still Defends Julian & McKinney Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit styled, Julian & McKinney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs filed this putative class and collective action on behalf of themselves and all current and former long-term disability (LTD) claims specialists between February 2011 and the present for alleged wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. The suit alleges that MLIC improperly reclassified the plaintiffs and similarly situated LTD claims specialists from non-exempt to exempt from overtime pay in November 2013. As a result, they and members of the putative class were no longer eligible for overtime pay even though they allege they continued to work more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. On March 22, 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as a collective action, requiring that notice be mailed to LTD claims specialists who worked for MLIC from February 8, 2014 to the present. MLIC intends to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. METLIFE INC: Parchmann Class Action Ongoing in New York ------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself in the putative class action entitled, Parchmann v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y., filed February 5, 2018). Plaintiff filed this putative class action seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife, Inc. common stock from February 27, 2013 through January 29, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and its former Chief Financial Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing materially false and/or misleading financial statements. Plaintiff alleges that MetLife's practices and procedures for estimating reserves for certain group annuity benefits were inadequate, and that MetLife had inadequate internal control over financial reporting. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Defendants intend to defend this action vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. MetLife, Inc. engages in the insurance, annuities, employee benefits, and asset management businesses. It operates through five segments: U.S.; Asia; Latin America; Europe, the Middle East and Africa; and MetLife Holdings. The company is based in New York. MICHAELS ORGANIZATION: AMC Loses Bid to Dismiss Amended Lenz Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA LENZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE MICHAELS ORGANIZATION, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-2950-T-60AEP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Defendant AMC East Communities' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs are members of the U.S. Military and their spouses that are currently or formerly housed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. According to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Clark MacDill Design Build failed to properly design and build their homes, and Defendants AMC, The Michaels Organization, LLC, Michaels Management Services, Inc., and Interstate Realty Management Co. failed to maintain and manage their housing, which has resulted in widespread and well-known problems with mold and led to serious injuries and safety issues for the Plaintiffs, prospective class members, and their families. The Plaintiffs allege numerous causes of action against the Defendants, including: breach of contract (Count I), breach of the implied warranty of habitability (Count II), violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count III), negligence (Count IV), gross negligence (Count V), and unjust enrichment (Count VI). The matter is before the Court on Defendant AMC' Motion to Dismiss, filed on April 30, 2020. AMC argues several grounds for relief, including: the complaint constitutes a shotgun pleading; the Plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient information about the lease agreements and attach the lease agreements to the amended complaint; the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently state claims for relief; and the Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege the requisite class allegations. On June 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition. Judge Barber finds that the amended complaint does not constitute a shotgun pleading. Although the complaint is lengthy and each count incorporates all prior factual allegations, he finds that the complaint is sufficiently pled and gives the Defendants, including AMC, notice of the claims against them. Additionally, each individual Plaintiff is not required to separately plead a distinct claim against each individual Defendant, particularly in a purported class action complaint. The motion to dismiss is denied as to this ground. Next, the Judge disagrees with AMC's argument that the amended complaint should be dismissed due to the Plaintiffs' failure to sufficiently plead the dates of the leases or attach the leases to the amended complaint. He finds that the amended complaint contains sufficient allegations to put AMC on notice as to the nature of the claim and the relief the Plaintiffs seek. The alleged facts satisfy the simple notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), and any remaining inquiries concerning the specific terms of the alleged contract may be resolved through discovery. The Plaintiffs' failure to make detailed factual allegations concerning the dates and specific terms of the alleged contract does not warrant dismissal. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs are not required to attach a copy of the written lease agreements to support their claims. The motion to dismiss is denied as to these grounds. As to Count III, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the existence and terms of the lease agreements, and they are not required to attach their leases to the complaint. To the extent AMC argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to give appropriate notice before bringing the suit, he finds that the statute cited by AMC applies to nonresidential tenancies rather than residential tenancies. Furthermore, even if such notice were required, the Plaintiffs actually allege that they provided notice of the mold and moisture issues to AMC. The motion to dismiss is denied as to these grounds. As to Count V, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged numerous acts and omissions that could support a finding of gross negligence. Although AMC contends that it affirmatively took actions, the Judge cannot, at this stage of the proceedings, determine whether those actions were adequate in any meaningful way. He denied the motion to dismiss as to this ground. As to Count VII, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to assert an alternative theory of unjust enrichment at this stage of the proceedings. Moreover, he finds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an unjust enrichment claim. As such, the motion to dismiss is denied as to these grounds. Finally, as to AMC's argument that the Plaintiffs' class action allegations are insufficient as a matter of law, the Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs' assertion that the class certification arguments are premature. Because he has granted an extension of time for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification, and such motion has not been filed at this time, the Judge declines to address these class certification arguments now. AMC is not precluded from raising these issues in its opposition to any class certification motion that is eventually filed. Based on the foregoing, Judge Barber denied Defendant AMC' Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant was directed to file an answer. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6h57lnp from Leagle.com. MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Ongoing in Freedman Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that mediation is ongoing in the purported class action suit headed by Freedman Family Investments LLC. On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-10511-IT (D. Mass.)) against OvaScience and certain former officers of OvaScience alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff, the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company answered the amended complaint. On December 9, 2019, the court granted leave for the lead plaintiff to file a second amended complaint under seal and permitted the defendants to file a motion to strike the second amended complaint. On December 30, 2019, the court granted the parties' joint motion to stay all proceedings in the case pending mediation. On March 3, 2020, the parties conducted a mediation session. The mediation was unsuccessful. The Company filed a motion to strike the second amended complaint on May 1, 2020. The Company believes that the amended complaint and the second amended complaint are without merit. The parties have agreed to participate in a second mediation session on November 10, 2020. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in the development of various treatments for orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. MYLAN NV: April 2021 Summary Judgment Trial in EpiPen(R) Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a trial date on the motion for summary judgment in the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, has been scheduled for April 2021. Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named as defendants in putative indirect purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as common law claims. Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as allegedly anti-competitive conduct. A Mylan officer and other non-Mylan affiliated companies were also named as defendants in some of the class actions. These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts and have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and have been consolidated. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On February 27, 2020, the District Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The District Court declined to certify consumer protection and unjust enrichment damages classes, as well as an injunctive relief class. The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17 states and a RICO class. The company filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification decision on March 12, 2020, which was denied. On July 15, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims asserted by plaintiffs. The motion is pending. A trial date has been scheduled for April 2021. Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic, brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. MYLAN NV: Bid to Nix EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated putative direct purchaser class action suit filed in the District of Minnesota, is pending. Beginning in March 2020, Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty, together with other non-Mylan affiliated companies, were named as defendants in putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination of pricing constraints in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust law. These actions have been consolidated and, on August 21, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic, brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. MYLAN NV: Class Suit Over Valsartan Recalls Ongoing in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit over personal injuries related to Valsartan. Mylan N.V., and certain of its subsidiaries, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers, and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including valsartan and ranitidine. The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning raniditine. The lawsuits against Mylan in the MDLs include putative class actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end payors as well as individual claims for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the medications. Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been filed in Canada and other countries. Mylan has also received claims and inquiries related to these products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of Mylan's active pharmaceutical ingredient and/or finished dose forms of these products. Mylan said, "We believe the claims in these matters are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic, brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. MYLAN NV: EpiPen(R) Direct Purchasers' Suit in Kansas Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the putative direct purchaser class action against the company related to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector, is ongoing. On February 14, 2020, Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities, together with other non-Mylan affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiff, in this case, asserts federal antitrust claims which are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative indirect purchaser class actions. On June 18, 2020, the District Court granted Mylan's motion to compel pre-suit mediation, which did not result in a resolution of this matter. On September 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 13, 2020. On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that is substantially similar to the allegations in the amended complaint thereby mooting the motion to dismiss. Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic, brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the IEC Fund securities action remains stayed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) until a judgment is issued in a securities litigation pending in the United States. On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors and officers in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program ("MDRP"), in violation of both U.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the Israeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among other remedies. On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief against the defendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., but alleging also that this group of defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging violations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law. On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motion filed by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC Fund Action, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying the IEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the purported class action securities litigation pending in the U.S. Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in the IEC Fund Action are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic, brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. NANTHEALTH INC: Deora Settlement Granted Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------- NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court in Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, and the order and settlement are now final. In March 2017, a number of putative class action securities complaints were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of our current or former executive officers and directors. These complaints have been consolidated with the lead case captioned Deora v. NantHealth, Inc., 2:17-cv-01825. In June 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which generally alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations in NantHealth's initial public offering (IPO) registration statement and in subsequent public statements. In particular, the complaint refers to various third-party articles in alleging that defendants misrepresented NantHealth's business with the University of Utah, donations to the university by non-profit entities associated with the Company's founder Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, and orders for GPS Cancer. The lead plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired NantHealth securities in the IPO or on the open market from June 1, 2016 through May 1, 2017. In March 2018, the court largely denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On July 30, 2019, the court certified the case as a class action. On October 23, 2019, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement in principle to resolve the action on a class-wide basis in the amount of $16,500, which was included in accrued and other current liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2019. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 31, 2020. A hearing for final approval of the settlement was scheduled for June 15, 2020, but on June 5, 2020, the Court decided to take the final approval motion on submission, and on July 17, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff's counsel to submit evidence substantiating all costs incurred. The $16,500 settlement was paid into a settlement fund prior to the payment deadline of March 2, 2020. The majority of the settlement amount was funded by the Company's insurance carriers, and a portion was funded by the Company. On September 10, 2020, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, and the order and settlement are now final. NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in Class Suit Set for Feb. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- NantHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court scheduled a status conference for February 4, 2021 in Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330 putative class suit. In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties agreed to stay the case. At a status conference on October 30, 2020, the court scheduled a status conference for February 4, 2021, to enable the plaintiff to decide whether to voluntarily dismiss, following the finalization of the Deora settlement. The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is as a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NATURMED INC: Henson Bid for Add'l Time to Serve Defendants Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JAMES HENSON, Plaintiff, v. NATURMED, INC., D/B/A INSTITUTE FOR VIBRANT LIVING, ET AL. Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-18-1102 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Henson's motion (i) seeking and extension of time to serve the additional Defendants and determine their involvement; and (ii) seeking an extension of time to refile his motion for default judgment against NaturMed. On April 17, 2018, Henson filed a class action suit against Defendant NaturMed. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant manufactured, distributed, and/or sold dietary supplements that are toxic to human beings. Henson asserted breach of warranty claims, tort claims, and a violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant filed its Answer on July 10, 2018 and the Scheduling Order was issued on Aug. 27, 2018. In the Scheduling Order, the Court set a deadline of Oct. 15, 2018, to amend the pleadings. By Order of March 11, 2019, the Court granted the Motion of NaturMed's attorneys to withdraw as counsel for the Defendant. Since then, no counsel has appeared for NaturMed. The Clerk entered a default against NaturMed in February 2020. In a Memorandum and Order of May 15, 2019, the Court granted Henson's motion to amend the Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, Henson added three new corporate Defendants to the suit: (1) Bactolac Pharmaceutical, Inc.; (2) Independent Vital Life, LLC; and (3) HKW Capital Partners III, L.P. But, in the year and several months that have since passed, he has never effected service of process on any of the additional Defendants. On Jan. 20, 2020, the Plaintiff moved for an entry of default as to NaturMed. The Clerk of Court entered a default against NaturMed on Feb. 5, 2020. Then, on July 15, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against NaturMed for the relief sought in the Amended Complaint. The Court referred the motion for default judgment to Chief Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner for review and for recommendations. In an Order of Aug. 14, 2020, Judge Gesner denied the motion, without prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to refile by Sept. 14, 2020. She reasoned that the motion did not "address whether the factual allegations contained in the Amended Complain constitute a legitimate cause of action. Moreover, she pointed out that the Motion failed to establish a basis for the requested award of damages and legal fees. Of particular relevance in the matter, Judge Gesner also explained that because Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW have not been served with the Amended Complaint, entering default only as to NaturMed would be inappropriate, in light of the allegations asserting joint and several liability and the risk of inconsistent judgments. She gave the Plaintiff until Sept. 14, 2020, to refile the motion for default judgment. In his instant motion filed Sept. 10, 2020, Henson seeks an extension of time to serve the additional Defendants and determine their involvement. He also seeks an extension of time to refile his motion for default judgment against NaturMed. Judge Hollander explains that Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW were added to the suit by way of the Amended Complaint, filed on May 15, 2019. That was approximately 16 months ago. The Plaintiff offers no explanation whatsoever as to why he has not served these Defendants in more than a year. Accordingly, she is without a "reasoned basis" to excuse the untimely service. Moreover, the case was filed in April 2018. At this point, more than two years later, the Judge discerns no basis to justify further delay of the litigation. It would be as if the case was just getting started, although it has been pending for about two and a half years. Therefore, she declined to extend the time for service upon Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW. However, she granted Henson an extension of time to refile his motion for default judgment against NaturMed. And, if the Plaintiff believes that he is entitled to a default judgment without dismissing his claims, with prejudice, against Bactolac, Independent Vital, and HKW, he should present his argument to Judge Gesner, with supporting authority. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hollander granted in part and denied in part Henson's motion. An Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 16, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y48fob64 from Leagle.com NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action related to alleged false and misleading statements of the Company to the market and customers about COVID-19. On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J. Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the same defendants. On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our ordinary shares between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020. NCL said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom. In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement of the investigation by the Florida Attorney General, we received notifications from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted at this time." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NCL Corporation Ltd. is a global cruise company operating the Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises brands. The Company is based in Miami, Florida. NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Securities Suits in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nektar Therapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action lawsuits in California. On October 30, 2018, the company and certain of its executives were named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (U.S. District Court in California), which complaint was subsequently amended on May 15, 2019. Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of the company's board of directors. These class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among other things, that for a period beginning at least from November 11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, our stock was inflated due to alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of bempegaldesleukin. On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court in California Court granted Nektar's motion to dismiss all claims in this securities class action filing, stating (among other things) that the amended complaint failed "to adequately allege that any of the statements … identified by Plaintiffs were false or misleading." Following the motion to dismiss, on August 10, 2020, the class action plaintiffs filed a second consolidated class action complaint, and the matter remains pending. In addition, on August 19, 2019, we and certain of our executives were named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in U.S. District Court in California, which complaint was subsequently amended on January 24, 2020. Also, on February 11, 2020, and on February 20, 2020, shareholder derivative complaints were filed in U.S. District Court in California naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of the company's board of directors, which derivative complaints were consolidated and subsequently amended on July 1, 2020. The class action and shareholder derivative complaints assert, among other things, that for a period between February 15, 2019 and August 8, 2019, inclusive, the company's stock was inflated due to an alleged failure to disclose a reduction in the planned number of bempegaldesleukin clinical trials and a bempegaldesleukin manufacturing issue. Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer, auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. The Company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. NESTLE USA: Slack-fill Class Suit Now Pending in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CPT Group, Inc. announced a class action lawsuit now pending in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles with Defendants Nestle U.S.A., Inc., and Ferrara Candy Company in Thomas, et al., v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc. The Action has been certified by the Court to proceed as a class action on behalf of the Class. This case arises out of allegations that Defendants violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Specifically, the Action alleges that Defendants' Products contain nonfunctional slack-fill in violation of California and federal law. If you purchased a box of Raisinets(R), Buncha Crunch(R), Butterfinger Bites(R), Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels(R), Rainbow Nerds(R), SweeTarts(R), Spree(R), Gobstopper(R), or Sno-Caps(R) in California for personal use and not for resale during the time period February 9, 2013, through the present, and you are not excluded from the Class by definition, you are a member of the Class. If you are a member of the Class, you have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class. Members of the Class will be eligible to participate in any recovery that might be obtained in the Action. If you have proof of purchase of one or more of the Products, keep these records. Do not mail them to Class Counsel or the Administrator at this time. No money or benefits are available now and there is no guarantee that money or benefits will be obtained. If they are, Class Members will be notified regarding how to obtain a share. If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must specifically request exclusion in accordance with the following procedures. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a letter by first-class mail stating that you request exclusion from the Class in Thomas, et. al., v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc., Case No. BC649863. Your request must: (i) state your name, address, and telephone number; and (ii) be signed by you. You must mail your exclusion request, postmarked by no later than November 9, 2020, to: Thomas, et al. v. Nestle U.S.A., Inc., et al. c/o CPT Group, Inc. 50 Corporate Park, Irvine CA 92606. If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgment in this Action, nor will you be eligible to share in any recovery that might be obtained in this Action. You will retain any right you have to individually pursue any legal rights, if any, that you may have against any Defendants with respect to the claims asserted in the Action. [GN] NEW VISION PIZZA: Darcy Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON DARCY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW VISION PIZZA, LLC; JM PIZZA, INC.; J & B PIZZA INC.; D&J PIZZA, L.L.C.; JOHN MEKLER; DAN FLECK; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10; Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01245-PRW (W.D. Okla., Dec. 11, 2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Darcy was employed by the Defendant as delivery driver. New Vision Pizza, LLC owns and operates a chain of fast food restaurants. The Company provides pizzas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Taylor, Esq. JEFFREY A. TAYLOR, P.C. 5613 North Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 E-mail: taylorjeff@mac.com - and - Andrew R. Biller, 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 - and - Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Erica Blankenship, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC 8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 715-8711 Facsimile: (614) 340-4620 E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com eblankenship@billerkimble.com NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Court Approves Avila Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2020, that the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has approved the settlement in Avila v. LifeLock et al. On August 29, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate remanding a securities class action lawsuit, originally filed on July 22, 2015, against our subsidiary, LifeLock, as well as certain of LifeLock's former officers for further proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Ninth Circuit had affirmed in part and reversed in part the August 21, 2017 decision of the District Court, which had dismissed the case with prejudice. The complaint in the remanded action alleges that, during a purported class period of July 30, 2014 to July 21, 2015, a period that predates the company's acquisition of LifeLock, the LifeLock Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. In fiscal 2020, the company settled this lawsuit and recorded a charge of $20 million in General and administrative expenses. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona approved the settlement on July 21, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage, and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices, networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in Tempe, Arizona. NORTONLIFELOCK INC: Trial in California Class Suit Set for June 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------ NortonLifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2020, that a trial date has been set for June 14, 2021, in the consolidated securities class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against us and certain of our former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleged that, during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018, defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in an order dated June 14, 2019. Pursuant to that order, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend and a proposed first amended complaint on July 11, 2019. The Court granted the motion in part on October 2, 2019 and the first amended complaint was filed on October 11, 2019. The Court's order dismissed certain claims against certain of our former officers. Defendants filed answers on November 7, 2019. A trial date has been set for June 14, 2021. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NortonLifeLock, Inc. engages in the provision of security, storage, and systems management solutions. It operates through Enterprise Security and Consumer Digital Safety segments. The Consumer Digital Safety segment provides solutions to protect information, devices, networks and the identities of consumers. The company is based in Tempe, Arizona. NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Faces Amended Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements ------------------------------------------------------------------- Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a consolidated amended complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff's counsel in a consolidated class action suit, which alleged that Norwegian Cruise made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19 On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J. Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the same defendants. On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's ordinary shares between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020. Norwegian Cruise said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom." In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement of the investigation by the Florida Attorney General, the company received notifications from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted at this time. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various distribution channels including retail and travel agents, international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Miami, Florida. NPAS SOLUTIONS: 11th Cir Eliminates Incentive Awards in TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- jdsupra.com reports that in a split decision, the 11th Circuit rejected a $6,000 incentive award for the named plaintiff in a TCPA class action. According to the majority in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, U.S. Supreme Court precedent prohibits such awards -- a holding that is bound to discourage class actions in the 11th Circuit. The decision is the most recent in a series of 11th Circuit rulings against TCPA plaintiffs. The named plaintiff in Johnson alleged, on behalf of himself and a putative class, that defendant NPAS Solutions, LLC, violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call cell phone numbers that had been reassigned to a non-consenting consumer. The case quickly settled, and the plaintiff moved to certify a settlement class. The district court granted preliminary approval, appointing the plaintiff as the class representative and his attorneys as class counsel. It also set a deadline for class members to object to the settlement that was nearly three weeks before the parties had to submit their petitions for fees and costs and their motion for final approval of the settlement. One class member objected to the settlement, taking issue with, among other things, the proposed $6,000 incentive award for the named plaintiff (which the objector had learned about through the settlement notice). The parties thereafter moved for final approval of the settlement, requested attorney's fees and costs, and opposed the objection, arguing that the settlement was fair. After holding a final fairness hearing, the district court sided with the parties and issued an order setting forth its fairness findings in a single, boilerplate sentence and awarding the named plaintiff a $6,000 incentive payment. (Remaining class members who submitted claims stood to receive only $79.) The order also stated, without explanation, that the objection "is OVERRULED." The objector appealed. Agreeing with the objector, the 11th Circuit held that the Supreme Court's decisions in Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882), and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885), prohibit incentive awards. In Greenough (and reiterated a few years later in Pettus), the Supreme Court refused the plaintiff's request for an award to compensate for his "personal services and private expenses" incurred in successfully bringing a claim on behalf of himself and other bondholders. According to the Supreme Court, such an award "would present too great of a temptation to parties to intermeddle in the management of valuable property or funds in which they have only the interest of creditors." The Johnson majority concluded that an incentive award was "roughly analogous" to a payment for personal services barred in Greenough and, if anything, presented an even greater risk of intermeddling to the extent the award provides a "bounty" for bringing suit. Notably, the 11th Circuit appears to be the only circuit to have applied Greenough and Pettus to bar incentive awards. While the 11th Circuit acknowledged that a contrary Second Circuit opinion had disregarded Greenough and Pettus as factually inapposite, it also explained that challenges to incentive awards are "few and far between" because the challenge must come from objectors, who have minimal incentives to assert a challenge. As a result, there are few opportunities for courts to consider the legal basis for an incentive award, which allows them to proliferate in class action settlements "as a product of inertia and inattention, not adherence to the law." The majority also rejected the dissenting judge's view that Holmes v. Continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983), required the court to consider simply whether the incentive award is fair. The majority countered that Holmes did not address a salary, bounty, or incentive award for a class representative; rather, it involved whether disparities in payments to the named plaintiffs were justified by the value of their unique, individual claims. In addition to rejecting incentive awards, the majority held that the district court failed to follow Rule 23(h) when it required objections to be filed before the class representative and counsel were required to move for final settlement approval and fees. It also concluded that the district court failed to adequately explain its rulings, including its denial of the objection to the settlement. The Johnson decision is the latest in a series of 11th Circuit rulings against TCPA plaintiffs, including Medley v. DISH Network, LLC (holding TCPA does not permit unilateral revocation of contractual consent), Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC (narrowly interpreting the definition of an automated telephone dialing system), and Salcedo v. Hanna (holding plaintiff lacked standing where he received only a single text message). Johnson's holding, however, extends beyond the TCPA to limit incentives for class representatives generally. This far-reaching consequence, along with the opposing views of the Second Circuit and dissent, could lead to a rehearing en banc by the 11th Circuit or Supreme Court review. [GN] OHIO: Attys. Asks Supreme Court to Hear Ogle Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- nrtw.org reports that National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys filed a petition for certiorari, asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case of Nathaniel Ogle. Ogle is an employee of the Ohio Department of Taxation who, despite never being a member, still had mandatory union fees deducted from his paycheck by officials of the Ohio affiliate of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v AFSCME that it is unconstitutional to require public sector employees like Ogle to subsidize union activities. Soon after, Ogle filed his class action lawsuit seeking a return of fees seized before the Janus decision from himself and potentially thousands of other state employees. AFSCME officials have thus far relied on the so-called "good faith" defense to avoid paying back money they took from nonmembers before the ruling in violation of the First Amendment as Janus recognized. However, in the Janus decision, not only did the Supreme Court not rule out retroactive relief, it also observed that union officials have been "on notice" for years that mandatory fees likely would not comply with the High Court's heightened level of First Amendment scrutiny articulated in the 2012 Knox v. SEIU Supreme Court decision. Foundation staff attorneys argue that in addition to there being no valid basis for the "good faith" defense under existing law, AFSCME officials also understood the dubious constitutionality of what they were doing when they extracted payments from nonmembers but still went forward with their legally suspect collection of forced union fees. Ogle's case was dismissed by the district court in July of 2019. A three judge panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later held that the union could avoid paying back its victims, despite the Supreme Court's assertion that unions had been "on notice," leading to today's petition for a writ of certiorari. Ogle is the fifth dues repayment case the Court is being asked to consider. The other four, including Foundation-backed cases Casanova v. IAM and the Janus case itself, are fully briefed and were scheduled to be considered at the Court's October 9th conference. Foundation staff attorneys are actively litigating about 20 of these cases which collectively seek the return of an estimated $130 million or more in forced union fees seized from workers in violation of the First Amendment. In a recent supplemental brief in Janus, Mark Janus' attorneys from the National Right to Work Foundation and Illinois-based Liberty Justice Center point out that two of three judges on a panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently opined that the "good faith" defense is invalid, while other federal judges have upheld it. This, they argue, makes it especially vital that the Court hear the case to clear up the confusion among lower courts and ultimately reject this spurious argument allowing union officials to profit from violating workers' constitutional rights. "The so-called 'good faith' defense, which permits union bosses to continue to ignore an established Supreme Court precedent, has already been rejected by two federal judges. It is vital that the Supreme Court take up this issue to disabuse all lower courts of this flawed argument, and to ensure that the victims of union officials' First Amendment violations finally get some justice," National Right to Work President Mark Mix said. "The Court already ruled in Janus that public workers cannot be forced to pay union dues. It is past time for the victims of these First Amendment violations, including Mr. Ogle and his coworkers, to receive justice." [GN] PARKER UNIVERSITY: Klein Suit Pending in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, DR. LAURIE KLEIN, DR. CRAIG MAURER, DR. STEVE LIRINGIS AND LISA LIRINGIS, DR. TODD ANTOVICH AND CAROL ANTOVICH, DR. RANDY MANTZ AND CARLENE MANTZ, DR. PAMELA HART, DR. GREG MOLIS, DR. LES COHEN, DR. KEN CARLE, DR. SHANE STAKER AND KELLY STAKER, DR. KEITH ALEXANDER, BETSY STUMMER, DR. JOHN SUTO AND DR. BILLIE SUTO, DR. JEFFREY FAILING, DR. MICHAEL GAGNON, DR. CRAIG LADOW, MIMI H. DUONG, DR. CRAIG THORNALLY, DR. MARK de DUBOVAY AND BARBARA de DUBOVAY, DR. RONALD B. SANDERS, DR. PEGGY ANDERSON, AND DR. PAM WACHHOLZ AND BOB NESTE, Plaintiffs, v. PARKER UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-03194-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a) extended the Defendant's time to respond to the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"); and (b) vacated the Initial Case Management Conference ("CMC"), vacated the Oct. 1, 2020 deadline to file CMC Statements, and reset the CMC for Dec. 10, 2020 and the deadline to file CMC Statements to Dec. 3, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Original Class Action Complaint on May 9, 2020. Thereafter, the Parties stipulated to an extension of time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint and to an extension of the CMC. On Aug. 3, 2020, the Court continued the CMC from Aug. 13, 2020 to Oct. 8, 2020. The Parties' CMC Statements are due on Oct. 1, 2020. In compliance with Local Rule 6-1(b), the date of the stipulation is more than 14 days prior to the Oct. 8, 2020 CMC. On Sept. 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the operative FAC. Parker's Response to the FAC is currently due on Oct. 1, 2020, the same date by which the Parties must file CMC Statements. It anticipates that it will file a Motion to Dismiss. Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b), the Parties stipulated that the Defendants will have an additional 14 days to respond to the FAC, making the Defendant's responsive deadline Oct. 15, 2020. Also pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(b) and to conserve the Court's and the Parties' resources, they stipulated to and respectfully request that the Court vacates the CMC currently scheduled for Oct. 8, 2020 and resets the CMC to take place approximately 60 days from the date of the current setting, or until after a hearing on Parker's Motion to Dismiss, or to a date that is convenient for the Court. Based upon the Court-approved Stipulation of the Parties, and the Declaration of Andrew M. Massara submitted therewith, the Parties requested entry of an Order pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(b) that (a) extends the Defendants' time to respond to the FAC from Oct. 1, 2020 to Oct. 15, 2020; and, (b) vacates the CMC currently scheduled for Oct. 8, 2020, vacates the Oct. 1, 2020 deadline to file CMC Statements, and resets the CMC for Dec. 10, 2020 and the deadline to file CMC Statements to Dec. 3, 2020. All parties will appear telephonically and must contact Court Conference at (866) 582-6878 at least one week prior to the Conference to arrange their participation. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 court-approved stipulation is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5nwcj85 from Leagle.com. BRIAN D. BERRY -- brian.berry@ogletree.com -- ANDREW M. MASSARA -- andrew.massara@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., San Francisco, CA, THOMAS A. LIDBURY, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Defendant PARKER UNIVERSITY. SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC, Mazin A. Sbaiti -- MAS@SbaitiLaw.com -- Jonathan E. Bridges -- JEB@SbaitiLaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice Motion Forthcoming) Brad J. Robinson -- BJR@SbaitiLaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice Motion Forthcoming) Dallas, TX, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. PEABODY ENERGY: OKC Firefighters Pension & Retirement Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Peabody Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System brought a securities lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the Plaintiff and a putative class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Plaintiff alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella Mine and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan to restart the mine after the fire. The Plaintiff further alleges that the false or misleading statements and/or failure to disclose adverse facts caused the Company's stock price to trade at artificially inflated levels only to fall in value after the alleged adverse facts were subsequently revealed. As a result of purchasing the Company's stock between the asserted class period of April 3, 2017 and October 28, 2019, the Plaintiff and the putative class allegedly suffered economic loss and damages under federal securities laws. The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and reimbursement of expenses, including legal fees. Peabody said, "The Company does not believe the lawsuit is meritorious and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations." Peabody Energy Corporation is involved in mining and sale of thermal coal to electric utilities and metallurgical coal for industrial customers. The company was founded in 1883 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. PERRIGO: Pension Funds Get Class Action Status Over Tax Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Pollock at independent.ie reports that two Florida public service pension funds have won class action certification in a case alleging pharmaceutical company Perrigo failed to disclose a disputed EUR1.6bn tax liability to Ireland. The Southern District of New York court rejected Perrigo's argument that the pension funds - City of Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan and Palm Bay Police and Firefighters' Pension Fund - have "too little knowledge of and too little engagement" with the case to be adequate class representatives. The funds claim Perrigo failed to share the disputed EUR1.6bn tax liability, which was included in a letter from Revenue it received in October 2018, with its investors. They allege details of the liability were not included in a report in November 2018 sent to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). They allege Perrigo didn't reveal the liability until an SEC filing in December 2018, leading to Perrigo's share price falling by 30pc in a day. The funds have achieved class action status for all entities damaged by buying the stock between November 8, 2018, through to December 20, 2018. It means several potential lawsuits with similar claims against Perrigo from other investors can be combined into a single proceeding led by one firm. The conflict stems from Revenue's audit of Elan's sale of a 50pc stake in Tysabri to Biogen. The deal happened eight months before Perrigo's acquisition of Elan in 2013. Through the deal, Elan received $3.25bn (EUR2.9bn) and an ongoing royalty stream. Revenue claims it should have been taxed as capital gains at 33pc instead of trading income at 12.5pc. Perrigo appealed against Revenue's decision in February. A hearing concluded in June and the High Court is still to announce its judgment. [GN] PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Suit vs. Bank Unit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the suit against Pinnacle Bank related to its failure to pay fees to purported agents of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) borrowers was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. In June 2020, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Pinnacle Bank alleging, among other claims, that Pinnacle Bank failed to pay fees to purported agents of PPP borrowers that the plaintiff alleged were owed under the PPP in violation of SBA regulations. During the third quarter of 2020, this suit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, though the plaintiff could file the suit again. Pinnacle Bank disputed the plaintiff's initial claims and would vigorously defend itself in connection with any future proceeding relating to the alleged claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. is a holding company for Pinnacle National Bank. The Bank operates as a community bank emphasizing personal banking relationships with individuals and businesses located in its primary service area, which is comprised of the Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee area and surrounding counties. The company is based in Nashville, Tennessee. PLUM BOROUGH: Associated Builders Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PLUM BOROUGH, et al. The case is styled as ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA; HAMPTON MECHANICAL INC.; LAWRENCE PLUMBING LLC; R.A. GLANCY & SONS INC.; ROBERT L. CASTEEL; ANTHONY SCARPINE; as individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PLUM BOROUGH; PITTSBURGH REGIONAL BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL, Case No. 2:20-cv-01933-WSH (W.D. Pa., Dec. 12, 2020). The case alleges civil rights violations. Plum -- https://www.plumboro.com/ -- is a borough in Allegheny County in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq. MITCHELL LAW PLLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 686-3940 Fax: (512) 686-3941 Email: jonathan@mitchell.law PLYMOUTH COUNTY: Justice Dept. Prevails in Detainees' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ plymouth.wickedlocal.com reports that the U.S. Attorney's Office prevailed in a habeas class action brought by law firms WilmerHale and Todd & Weld LLP seeking the release of over 150 detainees awaiting trial on federal charges, including serious drug and gun crimes, on the ground that continued detention was unconstitutional because of the threat to health and safety posed by COVID-19. "The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on detention facilities," stated United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling in a press release. "Our law enforcement partners in Plymouth met that challenge by swiftly instituting measures to ensure the safety of detainees, staff, and the public. Consequently, they prevailed, despite the plaintiffs' insistence that the facility was still unsafe. We are pleased the court recognized Plymouth's efforts in this case." "The health and safety of the persons committed to the department's care and custody, the staff, and the public is of paramount importance," Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald Jr., said. "It is gratifying to see that the court has recognized the many measures the department has taken to protect people during this time of unprecedented challenge." In April 2020, the detainees filed a habeas petition challenging the conditions at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility, the state jail where they are held, as inadequate to address the COVID-19 pandemic. They sought an injunction that would require the immediate release of some or all of them, as well as various other forms of relief. In May 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Leo T. Sorokin denied their request for an injunction based on the many measures and policies in place at PCCF to protect detainees and staff, but stopped short of dismissing the case at that time. In September 2020, the Court found that the detainees could not establish an entitlement to habeas relief, and that it would deny the habeas petition unless they presented additional evidence by Oct. 8, 2020. Instead, the detainees voluntarily dismissed the case. U.S. Attorney Lelling and Sheriff McDonald made the announcement. The case was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason C. Weida and Rachel Goldstein of Lelling's Civil Division, with assistance from Lisa Olson of the Justice Department's Civil Division. [GN] PLYMOUTH CTY, MA: Renewed Request for Discovery in Baez Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANTHONY BAEZ et al., Petitioners, v. ANTONE MONIZ, Respondent, Civil No. 20-10753-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Petitioners renewed request for discovery. On April 17, 2020, four federal detainees housed at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility ("PCCF"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed what they styled as a "Class Action Petition Seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," in which they raised constitutional challenges to their confinement arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the Petitioners filed a motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. The Respondent opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the petition. After receiving supplemental information from the parties and holding a hearing, on May 18, 2020, the Court denied both the Petitioners' request for injunctive relief and the Respondent's request for dismissal. Thereafter, the focus shifted to whether and how discovery should occur related to the merits of the Petitioners' claims. The Petitioners proposed engaging in broad discovery over several months, while the Respondent urged that no discovery was warranted. After hearing from the parties, the Court denied the Petitioners' request for discovery, finding they had neither identified with sufficient specificity the information they seek, nor demonstrated good cause to believe that engaging in discovery will yield information demonstrating that their claims are meritorious and entitle them to the relief they seek. The Court, however, permitted the Petitioners to "refine" their request, provided that they: a) specifically identify the information they seek and how they wish to obtain it; b) show good cause for their request by explaining in a non-speculative fashion why they expect that their requests will yield evidence that is not only relevant to, but will support the merits of, their claims; and c) propose a reasonable schedule for conducting the described discovery. On July 31, 2020, the Petitioners renewed their request for discovery, supporting their motion with a memorandum of law and attaching interrogatories and requests for documents that they proposed serving on the respondent. The Respondent opposed the discovery motion, urging that four "independent reasons" supported denying it, including one which it suggested warranted denying the habeas petition on its merits. The Petitioners addressed some of the Respondent's arguments in a reply brief. All the while, the Respondent continued to update the Court when new cases of COVID-19 were confirmed at PCCF, specifying the number of tests that PCCF had performed, the circumstances surrounding each new case, and the manner in which PCCF responded to new cases. To date at PCCF, a total of four detainees have tested positive for the virus, with no new cases among detainees in the last six weeks. Judge Sorokin finds that the Petitioners have not resolved the problems that led to the denial of their original request in their renewed motion for discovery. The Petitioners ground their requests in their stated belief that engaging in discovery "may enable" them to demonstrate that PCCF is not complying with the CDC's nonbinding guidance, and that such a showing "could," in turn, "entitle them to relief." That belief is unsupported by any meaningful showing suggesting that the fact or duration of their custody -- in the conditions as they presently exist at PCCF -- violates the Constitution. Rather, it is just the sort of vague and speculative justification that the Court already has found insufficient to open the doors to discovery in a case such as this one. Accordingly, the Petitioners have again failed to demonstrate that discovery is merited under the standards governing federal habeas proceedings. The Respondent has urged that the nature of the Petitioners' discovery requests -- and the Petitioners' failure to dispute much if any of the information provided in his robust factual return and in his other submissions over the last four months -- justifies denial not only of the discovery motion, but of the habeas petition itself. In these somewhat unusual circumstances -- where a prior determination that the petition will not succeed is coupled with no further factual development -- the Judge concludes that the Petitioners cannot establish an entitlement to habeas relief and, thus, that he should deny the petition. Although the Respondent invited denial of the petition in his opposition to the motion for discovery -- a proposition not addressed in the Petitioners' reply -- the request was not raised by separate motion and rested on reasoning slightly distinct from that which he has outlined. Judge Sorokin, therefore, will not dispose of the petition without allowing a final opportunity for the petitioners to respond. However, he will deny the petition, with all of the Petitioners' objections and rights preserved, unless the Petitioners make a further filing showing cause why further proceedings as to the merits of their claims are warranted. Accordingly, Judge Sorokin denied the motion for discovery, and the habeas petition will be denied, with all of the Petitioners' objections and rights preserved, unless they show cause why the Court should not deny the petition. The motion for class certification, which was previously stayed, was to be terminated as moot if the petition is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3bfure4 from Leagle.com. POLAR CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Amended McNulty Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KIMBERLY McNULTY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. POLAR CORP., Defendant, Case No. 19 Civ. 8903 (LGS) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff McNulty brings the putative consumer class action against the Defendant, alleging various state law claims arising out of its labeling flavored seltzer beverages as "100% Natural." The Defendant manufactures flavored seltzer beverages that are sold in retail stores. The Products come in a variety of flavors and are labeled "100% Natural" on their packaging and container labels. In June 2019, the Plaintiff purchased a Cranberry-Lime flavor box of the Products for $4.99 at Target. She buys natural or organic products when possible and decided to purchase the Products after reading "100% Natural" on the label. The Center for Applied Isotope Studies recently performed radiocarbon testing to determine whether the Defendant's Products are flavored or made with synthetic substances. According to the Complaint, radiocarbon testing differentiates between "bio-based" and "petrochemical-based" content, which is one way to measure whether food is made with "synthetic" or "natural" ingredients. Testing revealed that extracts of the Products produced estimates of 58% to 96% non-bio-based carbon content, meaning the Products include artificial compounds. The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less if she knew the Products were not as represented, i.e., not 100% natural. As a result of purchasing the Products, she is "worse off," since she believed the Products were 100% natural and discovered that she did not receive the benefit of her bargain. The Plaintiff would be interested in purchasing the Products in the future, if they were as represented. The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant labels the Products as "100% Natural" to enhance its profits when the Products are not actually as represented. The Complaint alleges violations of New York laws on unfair and deceptive trade and sale practices, New York Gen. Bus. L. ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350, and breach of contract. She seeks, among other remedies, monetary damages and declaratory relief. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(c), arguing that the Plaintiff lacks standing and that the Complaint fails to state a claim. It also seeks a stay of litigation. Judge Schofiled granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion. She granted the motion with respect to the claims for declaratory relief and breach of contract (Count III), but denied with respect to the GBL claims (Counts I and II). Among other things, Judge Schofiled finds that drawing all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff, the Complaint adequately alleges injury under a "price premium" theory. It alleges that the purpose of the Defendant's misrepresentation was to enhance the Defendant's profits, and had the Plaintiff been aware that the Products were not 100% natural, she would have paid significantly less for them. The Complaint further alleges that she and the other consumers are "worse off" after the purchases and did not receive the benefit of their bargain, since they paid for products that were inferior to what was promised. Allegations that a product had significantly less value than it warranted constitute a classic price premium theory of injury that is plausible and cognizable. The Defendant argues that the Complaint lacks information on the actual price premium, but the Complaint provides the price at which the Plaintiff last purchased the Products, which is sufficient. The Defendant's remaining two arguments with respect to these claims are rejected. Its argument that individualized questions of injury would cleave the putative class in two is appropriately addressed later, at the class certification stage. The Defendant's argument as to the significance of the Plaintiff's purchase of the Products three weeks after the radiocarbon test results requires assessing the weight of the evidence, which is not the Court's task at this juncture. Therefore, the motion is denied as to the GBL Sections 349 and 350 claims, rules the Court. The application for a stay is denied. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 50. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5u5deod from Leagle.com. POLARITYTE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Litigation Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ PolarityTE, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 26, 2018, a class action complaint alleging violations of the Federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Utah, by Jose Moreno against the Company and two directors of the Company, Case No. 2:18-cv-00510-JNP. On July 6, 2018, a similar complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by Yedid Lawi, Case No. 2:18-cv-00541-PMW. Both the Moreno Complaint and Lawi Complaint allege that the defendants made statements or disseminated information to the public through reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other channels that contained material misstatements or omissions in violation of Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 adopted thereunder. Specifically, both complaints allege that the defendants misrepresented the status of one of the Company's patent applications while touting the unique nature of the Company's technology and its effectiveness. Plaintiffs are seeking damages suffered by them and the class consisting of the persons who acquired the publicly-traded securities of the Company between March 31, 2017, and June 22, 2018. Plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate and for appointment as lead plaintiff. On November 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the Moreno and Lawi cases under the caption In re PolarityTE, Inc. Securities Litigation, and requested the appointment of the plaintiff in Lawi as the lead plaintiff. On January 16, 2019, the Court granted the motion of Yedid Lawi for appointment as lead plaintiff, and on February 1, 2019, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's motion for approval of lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also ordered that the lead plaintiff file and serve a consolidated complaint no later than 60 days after February 1, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 2, 2019, and asserted essentially the same violations of Federal securities laws recited in the original complaints. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on June 3, 2019. Plaintiffs' opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss was filed on August 2, 2019, and the Company filed a reply to the opposition on September 13, 2019. A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held on November 19, 2019; no order has been issued to date. PolarityTE said, "At this early stage of the proceedings the Company is unable to make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PolarityTE, Inc., a biotechnology and regenerative biomaterials company, focuses on discovering, designing, and developing a range of regenerative tissue products and biomaterials for the fields of medicine, biomedical engineering, and material sciences in the United States. The company operates in two segments, Regenerative Medicine and Contract Services. PolarityTE, Inc. is headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. PRECIGEN INC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Precigen, Inc. f/k/a Intrexon Corporation (NASDAQ: PGEN , XON) between May 10, 2017 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Precigen f/k/a Intrexon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Precigen class action, call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email him for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company was using pure methane as feedstock for its announced yields for its methanotroph bioconversion platform instead of natural gas; (2) yields from natural gas as a feedstock were substantially lower than the aforementioned pure methane yields; (3) due to the substantial price difference between pure methane and natural gas, pure methane was not a commercially viable feedstock; (4) the Company's financial statements for the quarter ended March 31, 2018 were false and could not be relied upon; (5) the Company had material weaknesses in its internal controls over financial reporting; (6) the Company was under investigation by the SEC since October 2018; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 4, 2020 . A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to [To enable links contact MENAFN] or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at [email protected] or [email protected] . NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] PRECIGEN INC: Stock Purchasers Putative Class Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Precigen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a named defendant in three purported shareholder class action lawsuits initiated by its stock purchasers. In October 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission informing the Company of a non-public, fact-finding investigation concerning the Company's disclosures regarding its methane bioconversion platform. The Company produced documents to, and met with, the staff of the SEC and voluntarily cooperated with the SEC investigation. In September 2020, the Company reached a final settlement with the SEC regarding the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company, without admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC, consented to the entry of an administrative order requiring that the Company: (i) cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and future violations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rules 13a-11 and 12b-20 promulgated thereunder; and (ii) pay a $2,500 civil money penalty to the SEC. In October 2020, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Abadilla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al, Chen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al., and Seppen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of its current officers and, in one matter, a former officer. Plaintiff's claims track the allegations in the SEC's administrative order described above. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. Precigen, Inc. is a dedicated discovery and clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company advancing the next generation of gene and cell therapies with the overall goal of improving outcomes for patients with significant unmet medical need. The company is based in Germantown, Maryland. PROGENITY INC: Bid to Consolidate Soe and Brickman Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Progenity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, as well as to consolidate the Aung Kyaw Soe v. Progenity, Inc., et al. and Brickman Investments Inc. v. Progenity, Inc., et al. actions, are pending. On August 28, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Aung Kyaw Soe v. Progenity, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-01683-CAB-AHG. The plaintiff, Aung Kyaw Soe, seeks to bring this action on behalf of all purchasers of Progenity common stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement issued in connection with the initial public offering (IPO). On September 23, 2020, the court ordered that no defendant has any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in this action pending appointment of a lead plaintiff and the lead plaintiff's filing of an amended complaint or designation of the existing complaint as the operative complaint. On September 11, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Brickman Investments Inc. v. Progenity, Inc., et al., No. 3:20-cv-01795-BEN-LL. The plaintiff, Brickman Investments Inc., seeks to bring this action on behalf of all purchasers of Progenity common stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering (IPO). In addition to the remedies described, the plaintiff seeks rescission or rescissory damages. Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, as well as to consolidate the two actions, are pending. Progenity, Inc. is a biotechnology company with an established track record of success in developing and commercializing molecular testing products as well as innovating in the field of precision medicine. The company is based in San Diego, California. PROSHARES TRUST II: Appeal from Dismissed Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the plaintiffs' appeal from the January 2020 Court order dismissing their consolidated securities class action is still pending. ProShare Capital Management LLC (the Sponsor) and ProShares Trust II are named as defendants in the following purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on the following dates: (i) on January 29, 2019 and captioned Ford v. ProShares Trust II et al.; (ii) on February 27, 2019 and captioned Bittner v. ProShares Trust II, et al.; and (iii) on March 1, 2019 and captioned Mareno v. ProShares Trust II, et al. The allegations in the complaints are substantially the same, namely that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act, and Items 303 and 105 of Regulation S-K, 17 C.F.R. Section 229.303(a)(3)(ii), 229.105 by issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are also defendants in the actions, along with a number of others. The Court consolidated the three actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On January 3, 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action in its entirety and ordered the case closed. On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Trust and Sponsor will continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of this action. ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF may incur expenses in defending against such claims. ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series. PROSHARES TRUST II: Named as Defendant in Di Scala Suit ------------------------------------------------------- ProShares Trust II said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the trust together with ProShare Capital Management LLC and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al. On July 28, 2020, ProShare Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor"), ProShares Trust II, and ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil ("UCO"), a series of the Trust, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Di Scala v. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, et al. The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material facts in the prospectus for UCO, and allegedly failing to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. Certain Principals of the Sponsor and Officers of the Trust are also defendants in the action. The defendants cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit. The Trust and the Sponsor intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Trust and the Sponsor cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits. ProShares said, "Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded in the Statement of Financial Condition and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil may incur expenses in defending against such lawsuits." ProShares Trust II is a Delaware statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007 and is currently organized into separate series. REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit initiated by Toshif Patel. On October 15, 2020, Toshif Patel filed a complaint for alleged violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the sufficiency of its MOXIe Part 2 study results to support a single study marketing approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of Friedreich's ataxia (FA) in the United States. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages and interest, costs, and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. The Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Reata said, "The Company cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom." Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing product candidates that modulate the activity of key regulatory proteins involved in the biology of mitochondrial function, oxidative stress, and inflammation to address the unmet medical needs of patients with various life-threatening diseases. The company is based in Plano, Texas. RECRO PHARMA: Seeks to Nix Amended Complaint Over IV Meloxicam --------------------------------------------------------------- Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the securities class action suit related to the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam, is pending. On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the Securities Litigation, was filed against us and certain of our officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but included new allegations and named additional officers as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the company filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice. On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on August 17, 2020. On September 16, 2020, the company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. In connection with the separation of Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio accepted assignment by the company of all of its obligations in connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify the company for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. Baudax Bio and the company believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company. It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. RESURGENT CAPITAL: Loses Schwebel Suit Dismissal Bid Under FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AVROHOM SCHWEBEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-8821 (KMK) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Kenneth M. Karas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Schwebel brings the putative Class Action against Resurgent, LVNV Funding, and John Does 1-25, alleging that the Defendants engaged in unlawful credit and collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff is a resident of Rockland County, New York. At some time before April 5, 2019, the Plaintiff allegedly acquired a "debt obligation" held by Credit One Bank, N.A. Subsequently, Credit One Bank (and thus the Debt) was acquired by LVNV, which then contracted with Resurgent to collect the Debt. The Plaintiff avers that LVNV and Resurgent are "debt collectors" which regularly engage in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts using the mail, telephone, and facsimile. On April 5, 2019, Resurgent sent the Plaintiff a letter concerning the Debt. The Plaintiff labels the communication from Resurgent an initial contact notice. The first page of the Letter includes a box in the top right corner that contains several pieces of information about the Debt, including the amount and identity of its current owner. The second page of the Letter includes text explaining an indebted person's rights under the FDCPA. The Plaintiff alleges that, as a consumer, he was left confused by the combination of the Inquiry Notice and the Validation Notice and that he therefore incurred an informational injury. In particular, he alleges that while the Inquiry Notice leads him to believe that his account is already under review and that he does not need to dispute the debt, the Validation Notice suggests the opposite by stating that he has 30 days to dispute his debt. Similarly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Inquiry Notice's suggestion that he call to discuss for further assistance misled him by implying that a phone call is sufficient to discuss all facets of the account including disputing the debt, when in reality, in order to properly assert all his rights, he Plaintiff must put the dispute request in writing. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees for the Defendants' alleged violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and §1692g. Finally, he also seeks to certify the instant Action as a class action on behalf of: all individuals with addresses in the state of New York to whom Resurgent sent an initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt on behalf of LVNV that included materially misleading and contradictory language regarding the status of a consumer's dispute as well as the method of communication a consumer must use in order to assert their dispute rights under 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(10) and 1692g that was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of the Action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of the Action. The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on Sept. 23, 2019. Pursuant to a briefing schedule adopted at a conference held on Jan. 9, 2020, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss and accompanying papers on Feb. 5, 2020, and, due to a filing error, refiled the same on Feb. 27, 2020. The Plaintiff filed his Opposition on Feb. 19, 2020. The Defendants filed their Reply on March 11, 2020. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the FDCPA because the Letter was not sent pursuant to a debt collection, because it adequately informs him of his rights, and because its text creates no risk of confusion. The Parties dispute three issues with respect to these provisions: whether the Letter (1) was an attempt to collect a debt; (2) was "deceptive" under Section 1692e(10); and (3) sufficiently informed the Plaintiff of his rights under Section 1692g(a). First, Judge Karas finds that the Letter, which the Plaintiff attaches to his Complaint, states as part of the Validation Notice: "this is an attempt to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose." Moreover, the Second Circuit has previously found that two nearly identical statements created the impression that they were sent in connection with debt collection. The Plaintiff has therefore successfully alleged that a consumer receiving the communication could reasonably interpret it as being sent in connection with the collection of a debt. Second, Judge Karas agrees with the Plaintiff. The Inquiry Notice states that "a review of his inquiry" has been "initiated," and directs him to call a toll-free number if he wishes to receive "further assistance." Drawing all inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, a least sophisticated consumer may well interpret these statements as suggesting that he need not file a written dispute in order to maintain his validation rights. In other words, the Plaintiff might assume, based on the Inquiry Notice (and despite the Validation Notice), that he need not do anything further to dispute his debt, and may therefore fail to send a written dispute or validation request, resulting in an inadvertent forfeiture of his FDCPA rights. Creating such uncertainty about the appropriate method of dispute resolution is sufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA. Finally, Judge Karas finds it plausible that an unsophisticated consumer could interpret the Inquiry notice as "overshadowing" the Validation Notice. In other words, while the Validation Notice accurately informs the Plaintiff of his rights and explains the method by which he can dispute the Debt, the Inquiry Notice suggests that the Debt is already being investigated, that subsequent communication should be by phone, and that further (and written) contact by the Plaintiff might be unnecessary. Accordingly, because he has plausibly alleged that a "least sophisticated consumer" might have interpreted the Inquiry Notice as "overshadowing or contradicting" the Validation Notice, the Plaintiff's Section 1692g claim survives the instant Motion. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Karas denied the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxnryyxk from Leagle.com. Kenneth Willard, Esq. -- kwillard@steinsakslegal.com -- Raphael Deutsch, Esq. -- rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com -- Stein Saks, PLLC, Hackensack, NJ, Counsel for Plaintiff. Randolph A. Scott, Esq., Peter G. Siachos, Esq. -- psiachos@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees, LLP, Florham Park, NJ, Counsel for Defendants. RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit over Privacy Violations Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Meena Reuben. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend time for the Company to respond to the Reuben's complaint. The Company has not responded to the complaint. RingCentral said, "This litigation is still in its earliest stages. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit." RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Suit on Hold Pending Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court has issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending approval of the settlement in the putative class action suit initiated by Joann Hurley. On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for reelection, and others. Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims. The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Hurley filed a motion to certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion, which have been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court. Discovery closed on October 25, 2019. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2019. Hurley opposed the motion, which has been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court. The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. The settlement will need to be approved by the court. Meanwhile, the court has issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending approval of the settlement. The condensed consolidated financial statements include an immaterial accrual for the estimated loss that is expected to occur. RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Plaintiffs' Bid to Amend Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Riot Blockchain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that motion for leave to amend the complaint in the consolidated Takata-Klapper suit has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3: 18-cv-02293. The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of stockholders that purchased stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency business. The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3: 18-cv-8031). The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. In lieu of opposing defendants' motions to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff filed another amended complaint on May 9, 2019. Defendants filed multiple motions to dismiss the amended complaint starting on September 3, 2019. On April 30, 2020, the court granted the motions to dismiss, which resulted in the dismissal of all claims without prejudice. On June 1, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file another amended complaint. The motion for leave to amend has been fully briefed and is pending before the court. Riot Blockchain said, "If the court grants Lead Plaintiff leave to amend, defendants intend to continue to vigorously contest Lead Plaintiff's amended allegations. Because this litigation is still at this early stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the magnitude of such an outcome, if any." Riot Blockchain, Inc. focuses on building, supporting, and operating blockchain technologies, primarily through its cryptocurrency mining operations and other developed businesses, as well as joint ventures, acquisitions, and targeted investments in the sector. The company was formerly known as Bioptix, Inc. and changed its name to Riot Blockchain, Inc. in October 2017. Riot Blockchain, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle Rock, Colorado. SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES: Paner Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Scientific Specialties, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Paner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Scientific Specialties, Inc., a California corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2020-0010233 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Dec. 7, 2020). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Scientific Specialties -- https://ssibio.com/ -- offers Pipette Tips, PCR, Screw Cap, Centrifuge, and Cryogenic Tubes, HTS and Tubes Racks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina M. Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Phone: 760-942-9430 Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com SHEPHERD'S CARE: Faces $8.1MM Suit on Handling of Covid Outbreak ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Labine, writing for Edmonton Journal, reports that Shepherd's Care Foundation is facing an $8.1-million class-action lawsuit over its handling of the COVID-19 outbreak at its Mill Woods care home. The statement of claim, filed on Oct. 28, alleges the non-profit charitable organization was negligent in its obligation to "safeguard the life, health, and dignity of residents and to ensure continued and adequate care." The representative plaintiff in this case is the daughter of a resident who tested positive for the virus in September and later died on Oct. 2. Statements of claim contain allegations not proven in court. The outbreak at the Millwoods Long Term Care Centre was confirmed by the company on Sept. 25. In late October, as many as 60 residents and 40 staff tested positive for the virus. As of Nov. 15, there were two active cases among residents. In total, 13 residents have died. Rick Mallett, the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, said roughly 10 people have signed onto the legal action so far. He said when the claim is approved, all residents who became ill and all the family members of those who died will automatically be included, unless they wanted to opt-out. "In this particular one, it went from zero to 100 very quickly," he said. "You had over 60 residents, 40 staff that have ended up with the virus. There are still ongoing cases. I think it's one of the more dramatic outbreaks, certainly in Alberta, and it's one of those that needs to be adjudicated in terms of having an action on behalf of the family members who are affected and also the residents who were ill and recovered or still ill." Mallett said the families are looking for accountability and transparency as well as assurances that an outbreak like this won't happen again. The claim lists roughly 20 alleged breaches of duty of care including failing to have enough staff, adopting advanced testing methods, failing to ensure adequate safety protocols were in place, failing to provide or monitor the separation of residents, failing to conduct regular testing, allowing employees to work at other sides and allowing visitors without having proper testing or protocols in place. "It's particularly devastating if you lose a parent (and) then you weren't able to spend that kind of quality time with them at the end of their life," Mallett said. Shepherd's Care Foundation, which was served the lawsuit on Nov. 13, has up to 20 days to provide a defence to the claim. Zachary Penner, executive director of communications with the foundation, confirmed in an email that Shepherd's Care plans to fight the lawsuit. Foundation president and CEO Shawn Terlson in a statement on Nov. 13 said they are currently reviewing the allegations. "As this matter is now before the courts, we will not be able to speak to the specifics of it," he said. "However, we can say with confidence that we will approach this situation with compassion and respect." In the statement, Terlson praised the non-profit charitable organization's front line staff for their hard work during the pandemic and said they continue to provide quality care and accommodations to seniors. He said the foundation has spent an additional $4 million on staffing, PPE and other protective measures. Shepherd's Care Foundation provides care to more than 1,800 seniors throughout Edmonton and Barrhead. [GN] SOCIAL SECURITY: SSA to Release Files on Doan & Nguyen in Thai Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANH TUYET THAI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15cv583-WQH (NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (i) authorized the Social Security Administration ("SSA") to release any SSA investigative files pertaining to Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen; and (ii) entered a protective order. Before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 1. The case is a class action in which the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants William Villasenor and Dulce Sanchez violated their constitutional rights when they entered the Plaintiffs' homes to question them about their SSA applications for benefits. Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen were previously named Plaintiffs in the lawsuit as well, but were dismissed with prejudice on Aug. 18, 2016. The operative complaint at that time was the Second Amended Complaint, and the Plaintiffs alleged in that complaint that they had been the subject of a campaign of intimidation by agents and employees of the SSA after they filed affidavits in another class action against the SSA, Diep Nguyen, Anh Thai, et al. v. SSA, 13-2036 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Doan and Nguyen were dismissed with prejudice because they did not file affidavits in the prior action. The Plaintiffs then filed a Third Amended Complaint. In that complaint, Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez were named for the first time as "armed agents" who were investigators with the Los Angeles District Attorney Investigators Unit and members of the Los Angeles Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit. Doan and Nguyen were not named as Plaintiffs in the complaint. The complaint was again dismissed. The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration on the dismissal, and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They appealed the dismissal of their claims against Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez and the appellate court reversed, finding that a plausible claim could exist against them for entering Plaintiff Anh Thai's home without her consent. In addition, Doan and Nguyen appealed their dismissal from the Second Amended Complaint and the appellate court also reversed in part, finding that the complaint plausibly alleged that state and/or local law enforcement agents of the SSA's CDI unit carrying guns and police badges entered their homes without their consent but their other claims were properly dismissed because they did not submit affidavits in the prior lawsuit. The case is now back in front of the Court after the appeal. The Court held a case management/status conference with the parties at which time the parties discussed this discovery dispute but failed to reach agreement on the issue. The parties subsequently filed the instant motion. In the motion, the Defendants request the entry of a protective order and for an order authorizing the release of the SSA files pertaining to Doan, and Nguyen. The Plaintiff opposes the request, arguing that at present there is no operative complaint in the case, and because Doan and Nguyen are not currently named Plaintiffs in the case, there is no basis for the Defendants to request their SSA files until they are added. Magistrate Judge Stormes holds that both parties have alerted the Court to the issue regarding the Plaintiff seeking to add the two new plaintiffs. Even though the issue has not yet been formally raised in a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, the Plaintiff does not dispute her intention to do so. Indeed, the Plaintiff raised it on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed in part on the issue. The only point of contention is one of timing -- the Plaintiff does not believe that the Defendants should get the SSA file discovery related to the two new plaintiffs until the motion is formally made and granted. However, the Magistrate Judge agrees with the Defendants. Production of these files right now would promote more efficient litigation of the case. The privacy of Plaintiff Thai and Doan and Nguyen is be protected by the attached protective order. Accordingly, she granted the Defendants' motion and issued the Order, authorizing the SSA to release any SSA investigative files pertaining to Doan and Nguyen. Magistrate Judge Stormes also entered the protective order in the case. She made modifications to the proposed protective order in Paragraphs 12, 13, and 27, as shown in bold and underlined. In addition, if Doan and Nguyen are not ordered to be added as Plaintiffs to the case, the Defendants must either return and/or destroy, and provide verification to the Plaintiff of the destruction, of their SSA files within seven days of such order. Finally, both parties seek sanctions and fees against the other for having to file the motion. Magistrate Judge Stormes denied both requests and declined to impose monetary sanction either party. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y37y58d3 from Leagle.com. STERLING JEWELERS: Sup. Court Declines to Hear Class-Action Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------------ jckonline.com reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Sterling Jewelers' appeal of a court ruling that will allow 70,000 female employees to participate in a massive class-action arbitration that alleges that the company systematically discriminated against them. The court case dates back to 2008, when a group of 14 female Sterling employees filed a gender-discrimination complaint in New York federal court. The suit, which sought class-action status, claimed that female employees were paid less than their male counterparts because of certain company policies, including a "tap on the shoulder" promotion system. The court sent to the case to arbitration, as mandated by the company's RESOLVE (internal dispute-resolution) program. In 2009, arbitrator Kathleen Roberts ruled that Sterling's RESOLVE agreement permitted class-action suits. She eventually certified a class that could include as many as 70,000 women -- which would constitute the largest class-action arbitration in history. Sterling disputed that RESOLVE allowed class actions, as they weren't mentioned in the original agreement. It appealed the arbitrator's decision in 2010, setting off a battle that has lasted a decade. In 2018, a New York judge ruled the arbitrator had exceeded her authority and limited to the class to just 250 litigants who had opted in to the class action. The plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela that ambiguous arbitration agreements didn't permit class-action suits -- a seeming victory for Sterling's position. Its attorney told JCK that it hoped the Supreme Court decision would help bring the original claimants "closure." Yet six months later, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Sterling and overturned the district court's ruling, while noting this was the "fourth time this case has come before this Court." In its unanimous decision, the court of appeals differentiated between the Sterling and Lamps Plus cases, as the Lamps Plus agreement said that a court, not an arbitrator, would settle the class-action question. "By signing the RESOLVE Agreement," wrote Circuit Judge Peter Hall, "[employees] consented to the arbitrator's authority to decide the threshold question of whether the agreement permits class arbitration." Sterling then filed a motion for an en banc panel to rehear the case -- which was denied -- before turning to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decision likely means that Sterling has reached the end of the line on this particular question. It is now possible that, after 12 years, arbitrator Roberts may finally get to rule on the underlying question of whether Sterling's policies permitted gender discrimination. The size of the class means that the arbitration could prove potentially costly to the company, which has already sustained considerable PR damage from this saga. While allegations of sexual harassment have arisen in the class action -- and have comprised a lion's share of the press coverage of this case -- they are not part of the class-action litigation, which is largely focused on the question of pay equity. Plaintiff attorney Joseph Sellars did not return a request for comment by the time of publication. A statement from Signet said, "We believe the claims in this matter are without merit and are not substantiated by the relevant facts and statistics. We will continue to vigorously defend against these claims, which do not accurately reflect our company or our culture. Indeed, we have long been committed to fostering a culture of respect, integrity, diversity, and inclusion where all employees feel safe, supported, and empowered—this is a tenet of who we are." It noted that "Signet is a recognized leader among companies for gender diversity, with women filling 74% of store management positions and gender parity in both the C-Suite and Board of Directors. Under the leadership of our CEO, Gina Drosos, we continue to champion diversity and inclusion as a strategic priority, as we have been honored to be included on the Bloomberg Gender Equality Index for two consecutive years." [GN] SUGAR MEMORIES: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugar Memories, L.L.C. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sugar Memories, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-10548 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sugar Memories, L.L.C. -- https://www.groovycandies.com/collections/sugar-memories-llc -- is a collection of candies by Groovy candies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SWATCH GROUP: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SWATCH GROUP (U.S.) INC. d/b/a BREGUET; DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02462-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020) arises from the Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Website, https://www.breguet.com/en, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff. The Swatch Group (U.S.) Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sales finished watches, jewelry, and watch movements and components. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com TD ASSET: Loses Bid to Block Class Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------- investmentexecutive.com reports that TD Asset Management Inc. (TDAM) has lost a bid to appeal the certification of a class action lawsuit regarding trailing commissions paid to discount brokers on TD mutual funds. The Ontario Divisional Court has rejected TDAM's leave to appeal an earlier ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that certified a class action alleging investors lost tens of millions of dollars over trailer fees paid to firms that didn't provide any advice. Siskinds LLP, class counsel in the lawsuit against TDAM, also is class counsel in six other class actions against other mutual fund trustees/managers that are alleged to have paid trailing commissions to discount brokers. The other class actions involve Scotia/Dynamic, CIBC, RBC, National Bank, BMO and Mackenzie mutual funds, according to a release from Siskinds. [GN] TD ASSET: Suit for Commissions to Discount Brokers Certified ------------------------------------------------------------ cbc.ca reports that an Ontario law firm says a class action centred on TD Asset Management Inc.'s trailing commissions to discount brokers has been certified. Siskinds LLP says the class action was prompted by a retired dentist investing in mutual funds, who discovered that TD Asset Management was paying trailing commissions to discount brokers like TD Direct Investing for services and advice, but neither was being provided. A trailing commission, also known as a trailer fee, is paid by mutual fund investors to financial advisers in exchange for regularly reviewing holdings and providing guidance. The retired dentist alleges his mutual fund assets were wasted by the commissions he had to pay and says investors lost tens of millions of dollars because of the practice. TD Bank Group, which Siskinds says unsuccessfully sought an appeal of the certification decision, declined to comment because it said the matter is still before the courts. Siskinds is currently pursuing six other trailing commissions class actions against mutual fund trustees managers, including the Bank of Nova Scotia's Dynamic, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, National Bank and Bank of Montreal Investments. [GN] THINK FINANCE: Two Venture Capitalists Pay $50 Million ------------------------------------------------------ Peg Brickley and Becky Yerak, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that online lender Think Finance LLC and its backers resisted critics for years, litigating and lobbying in defense of its payday lending business. Now two of Silicon Valley's most prominent venture capitalists are paying $50 million over their roles in the failed company's allegedly illegal practices. The settlement covers venture-capital firms Sequoia Capital and TCV, which backed Think Finance before it collapsed into bankruptcy in 2017, hammered as a predatory lender by regulators and consumer class-action lawyers. [GN] TIVITY HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in Strougo Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the Court in the putative class action suit initiated by Robert Strougo, appointed Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On February 25, 2020, Robert Strougo, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased Common Stock between March 8, 2019 and February 19, 2020. The Strougo Lawsuit was filed as a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming the Company, the Company's chief financial officer and former chief executive officer as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the performance of the Nutrisystem business that the Company acquired on March 8, 2019. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On August 18, 2020, the Court appointed Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33, Cleveland District, Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. The deadline for lead plaintiff to file its amended complaint is November 13, 2020. Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TIVITY HEALTH: Trial in Weiner Class Suit Currently Set for May 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tivity Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the class action suit initiated by Eric Weiner, is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021. On November 20, 2017, Eric Weiner, claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of stockholders who purchased Common Stock between February 24, 2017 and November 3, 2017. The Weiner Lawsuit was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, naming as defendants the Company, the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer and a former executive who served as both chief accounting officer and interim chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act in making false and misleading statements and omissions related to the United Press Release. The complaint seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On April 3, 2018, the Court entered an order appointing the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and designated counsel for the lead plaintiff. On January 29, 2020, the Court granted lead plaintiff's motion to certify the class. The case is currently set for trial on May 18, 2021. Tivity said, "We are currently unable to predict the probable outcome of the Weiner Lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the Weiner Lawsuit." Tivity Health, Inc. provides fitness and health improvement programs in the United States. The company was formerly known as Healthways, Inc. and changed its name to Tivity Health, Inc. in January 2017. Tivity Health, Inc. was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. TL CANNON: Dees Seeks to Recover Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY DEES; and DAKOTA BOLAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. T.L. CANNON CORP. d/b/a APPLEBEES; T.L. CANNON MANAGEMENT CORP.; TLC WEST, LLC; TLC CENTRAL, LLC; and TLC UT, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-01537-BKS-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2020) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. T.L. Cannon Corp. owns and operates grill & bar restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James Emmet Murphy, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com - and - Frank S. Gattuso, Esq. GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC 7030 E. Genesee Street Fayetteville, NY 11901 Telephone: (315) 314-8000 E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Alaniz Consumer Class Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled MARIANO ALANIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01351, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on December 10, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case No. 4:20-cv-00943-ALM to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law by designing and marketing Toyota 2010-2015 Prius and Prius PHV, 2012-2015 Prius V, 2012-2014 Camry Hybrid, and 2013-2015 Avalon Hybrid vehicles with defective brake booster pump assemblies. Toyota Motor Corporation is an automobile manufacturer, with its principal place of business located at 1 Toyota-Cho, Toyota City, Aichi Prefecture, 471-8571, Japan. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is Toyota Motor Corporation's U.S. sales and marketing arm, which oversees sales and other operations in 49 states, headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and – Scott A. Bursor, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: scott@bursor.com UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms in Part Injunction Ruling in Roman ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN; BEATRIZ ANDREA FORERO CHAVEZ; MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Petitioners-Appellees, v. CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; TONY H. PHAM, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; DAVID MARIN, Director of the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; JAMES JANECKA, Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, Defendants-Respondents-Appellants, Case No. 20-55436 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction order in part, vacated it in part, and remanded so that the district court may immediately address current circumstances at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center. The Plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of noncitizens detained at Adelanto. These noncitizens are being held in civil detention in connection with various immigration proceedings, and many of them have no criminal record. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as habeas relief. Their Complaint alleges that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Adelanto's failure to implement necessary protective measures violates detainees' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. The district court certified a class of 1,370 Adelanto detainees, and granted a preliminary injunction that, inter alia, imposed a moratorium on Adelanto's receipt of new detainees, required specific sanitation measures, mandated compliance with guidance issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC"), and ordered the facility's detainee population to be reduced to a level that would enable social distancing. It left to the Government's discretion whether to achieve the requisite population reduction by deporting selected detainees, transferring selected detainees to other facilities, or releasing selected detainees with appropriate conditions of release. The court likewise allowed the Government to determine which detainees to release, deport, or transfer. The Government timely appealed and sought an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, which a motions panel, in an unpublished order, granted, except to the extent the preliminary injunction required substantial compliance with guidelines issued by the CDC for correctional and detention facilities to follow in managing COVID-19. The Appellate Court heard oral argument on Sept. 15, 2020. The next day, in response to an inquiry from the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Government revealed to the Plaintiffs' counsel that 38 detainees had tested positive for COVID-19 at Adelanto. In the district court, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") on Sept. 16, 2020, seeking an order compelling the Government to test all Adelanto detainees (using rapid, point-of-care tests, if possible) and to isolate all detainees who received positive test results. The Government filed a status report, which the district court construed as an opposition to the TRO application. The district court denied the application for a TRO on Sept. 17, 2020, without specifying its reasoning. The following day, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for reconsideration of the district court's denial of their motion for a TRO and sought a further TRO. Specifically, they requested that the district court order the Government to: (1) test all detainees at Adelanto; (2) isolate, in single occupancy cells, all detainees who have tested positive for COVID-19 and all detainees who are awaiting test results; (3) prevent staff who worked in the West 5C and West 5D housing units from returning to work pending their COVID-19 test results, even if they are asymptomatic; (4) suspend intake of new detainees into Adelanto; and (5) provide daily status reports. The Plaintiffs acknowledged that the Government was already undertaking some of the measures requested but contended that the Government had neither adopted the isolation protocols proposed by them nor suspended its receipt of new detainees into Adelanto. The Government again opposed the motion. In an order issued on Sept. 22, 2020, the district court expressed concern about the adequacy of the Government's response to the outbreak, but it stated that its hands have been tied by the Ninth Circuit's stay. It therefore denied reconsideration, but it instructed the parties to file a joint status report "regarding Adelanto's Covid-19 outbreak" with the Appellate Court, which the latter received later that same afternoon. The parties' report informed the Court that, as of September 22, there were 58 confirmed cases among detainees and eight among staff members. More than half of the detainees who had received results tested positive. Twenty of the COVID-19-positive detainees belong to a medically vulnerable group at the greatest risk of suffering severe complications, and nine detainees were hospitalized. The Government has stated its intention to test all Adelanto detainees and staff. Just over half of the 774 detainees had been tested by September 20. Tests apparently take at least three days to return results, so the parties are awaiting results for hundreds of detainees. The Court received an emergency motion from the Plaintiffs on the evening of September 22, several hours after it received the parties' status report, asking it to clarify or to partially lift the emergency stay imposed by the motions panel. The emergency motion asserted that the Government had not imposed measures at Adelanto necessary to counter the developing outbreak. Among other things, the Plaintiffs reported that the detainees in the housing unit with confirmed cases were being held "two per cell," less than six feet apart; new detainees were continually being brought into the facility; and only some of the detainees had been tested for the virus so far. They asked the Court to clarify that the emergency stay of the district court's preliminary injunction did not deprive the district court of authority to order appropriate isolation protocols and a temporary halt to new intakes in light of the changed circumstances presented by the current outbreak. The Plaintiffs requested, in the alternative, that the Court lifts the stay insofar as it prohibits the district court from responding to the current crisis. Yhe parties dispute whether district courts have authority to order the types of relief in the preliminary injunction in response to habeas claims. Specifically, the Government argues that a district court on habeas review may not order detainee releases or any other injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The Ninth Circuit need not reach that issue to resolve the appeal because, separately from their habeas petition, the Plaintiffs brought a class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to remedy allegedly unconstitutional conditions at Adelanto. That action for declaratory and injunctive relief independently provided the district court jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs' challenges and authority to grant the types of relief that they sought. The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction in response to the Plaintiffs' due process claims. The district court made detailed factual findings in support of the preliminary injunction, none of which the Government challenged in its brief on appeal as being clearly erroneous. In light of these factual findings, which the Government has not shown to be clearly erroneous, the Court agrees with the district court that the conditions at Adelanto in April violated detainees' due process right to reasonable safety. It also agrees with the district court that the Government likely failed to meet its constitutional duty to provide reasonably safe conditions to the Plaintiffs. The district court was also correct in its conclusion that the Plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm absent relief given COVID-19's high mortality rate. Finally, the district court rightly concluded that the equities tipped in the Plaintiffs' favor, particularly in light of the lack of criminal records of many of the detainees and the alternative means available to prevent their absconding if they were released, such as electronic monitoring. The Ninth Circuit further holds that the district court did not err by provisionally certifying a class of all Adelanto detainees. The alleged due process violations exposed all Adelanto detainees to an unnecessary risk of harm, not just those who are release-eligible or uniquely vulnerable to COVID-19. The preliminary injunction afforded class-wide relief that would have remedied the constitutional violations as to all detainees, even though it would have entailed the release or transfer of only some of the detainees. The district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the Plaintiffs had satisfied the commonality, adequacy, and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and the uniform remedy requirement of Rule 23(b)(2). Although it affirms the portions of the preliminary injunction order concluding that the district court possesses the power to grant injunctive relief and that the Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their due process claims, the Court nonetheless vacates the provisions of the preliminary injunction that ordered specific measures to be implemented at Adelanto. It vacates the provisions of the injunction ordering specific reductions in the detainee population and specific changes in conditions at the facility and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this disposition and with the latest facts. The facts that motivated the district court's preliminary injunction no longer reflect the current realities at Adelanto. Finally, the injunction should, to the extent possible, reflect the scientific evidence about COVID-19 presented to the district court. The Ninth Circuit sees no evidence in the current record that suggests wearing a mask in this specific situation would reduce COVID-19 transmission. If the district court determines on remand that scientific evidence supports ordering this measure, it should clearly identify the relevant evidence. Based on the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the preliminary injunction order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its disposition. Because the substantive provisions of the preliminary injunction are vacated, the Court dissolved forthwith the stay pending appeal of that order, and denied the Plaintiffs' emergency motion as moot. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 23, 2020 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6aqnkc7 from Leagle.com. UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeal in Teamsters Local 456 Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Universal Health Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that plaintiffs in Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al., have filed an appeal with the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals on the court's denial of its motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against UHS and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The case was originally filed as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs. The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:17-CV-02817-LS). In September 2017, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund filed an amended complaint. The amended class action complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws relating to disclosures made in public filings associated with alleged practices and operations at our behavioral health facilities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for shareholders during the defined class period as a result of the decrease in share price following various public disclosures or reports. In December 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2019, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion with the court seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. In April 2020, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the 3d Circuit Court of Appeals. Universal Health said, "We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The parties have recently initiated settlement negotiations during the pendency of the appeal, however, we can provide no assurance that a settlement will be reached. We are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter." Universal Health Services, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and behavioral health care facilities. The company operates through Acute Care Hospital Services, Behavioral Health Care Services, and Other segments. Universal Health Services, Inc. founded in 1978 and is headquartered in King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania. US ECOLOGY: Settlement Reached in Sullivan PAGA Claims ------------------------------------------------------ US Ecology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in Kevin Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al., reached a settlement resolving the pending California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim, subject to court approval of such settlement agreement. In January 2019, Kevin Sullivan, a driver for NRC Group Holdings Corp. from May 1, 2018 to August 22, 2018 filed a class action complaint against NRC in California Superior Court (Kevin Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al.) alleging the failure by the defendants to provide meal and rest breaks required by California law and requiring employees to work off the clock. Mr. Sullivan's complaint also asserted a claim under the PAGA, which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties that could be recovered by the State of California. On April 17, 2019, NRC filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, strike Mr. Sullivan's class action claims and stay the PAGA claim pending the outcome of Mr. Sullivan's individual claim; the court subsequently granted NRC's motion to compel. In response, Mr. Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with the PAGA claim. Unlike class claims, PAGA claims cannot be waived by an employee's agreement to individual arbitration; therefore, the case is proceeding as a pure representative PAGA claim only, absent any individual or class claims against the Company or NRC. The parties participated in a confidential mediation on August 3, 2020, and reached a settlement resolving the pending PAGA claim, subject to court approval of such settlement agreement. US Ecology, Inc. is a leading provider of environmental services to commercial and governmental entities. The Company addresses the complex waste management and response needs of its customers, offering treatment, disposal and recycling of hazardous, non-hazardous and radioactive waste, leading emergency response and standby services, and a wide range of complementary field and industrial services. The company is based in Boise, Idaho. VERTEX GLOBAL: Franklin Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vertex Global Solutions, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Henry Franklin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Vertex Global Solutions, Inc., Fresh Direct, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10495-KPF (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2020). The case alleges violation of civil rights. Vertex Global Solutions -- https://vertexglobalsolutions.com/ -- provides staffing services primarily on the Eastern Seaboard of the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 west 24th Street, Ste. 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: (212) 465-1180 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss PCRA Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------- ViewRay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2020, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement Association v. ViewRay, Inc., et al., is pending. On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief financial officer. On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff, and on February 28, 2020 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting securities fraud claims against the Company, its chief executive officer, chief operating officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. Now captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. ViewRay, Inc., et al., the amended complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts concerning its business, operations, and financial results, and seeks damages, interest, and other relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 28, 2020. While the initial motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint. A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2020, and that motion has been fully briefed. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. ViewRay Inc. develops radiation therapy technology for the treatment of cancer. The Company offers radiation therapy systems that images and treats cancer patients simultaneously. ViewRay serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Oakwood Village, Ohio. WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES: Trim Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakefield & Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Martin Trim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wakefield & Associates, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-02420-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2020). The case alleges civil rights violations. Wakefield & Associates -- https://www.wakeassoc.com/ -- is a provider of accounts receivable management and delinquent account recovery in the healthcare arena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juliana G. Blaha, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (866) 219-3343 Fax: (866) 219-8344 Email: juliana@swigartlawgroup.com WALMART INC: Powell Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DEARL POWELL, CHRISTINA GAST and ELIJHA GONZALEZ, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., WAL-MART STORES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02020-35007-CU-OE, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on December 10, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-02412-BEN-LL to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code by failing to timely pay wages upon termination of the Plaintiffs' employment. Walmart Inc., formerly known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is a retail company based in Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com - and – Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com WILLIAMS & FUDGE: $68,000 Yadgarova Suit Settlement Gets Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MARINA YADGAROVA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS & FUDGE, INC., Defendant, Class Action No. 1:19-cv-1232-AMD-RER (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Parties' request for final approval of their Class Action Settlement Agreement. On Sept. 22, 2020, the Court held a fairness hearing. Judge Reyes finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and finally approves the Agreement submitted by the Parties. He certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) the class of (a) all individuals with addresses in New York State (b) to whom defendant Williams & Fudge, Inc. (c) sent an initial collection letter (d) attempting to collect a debt (e) on which interest is accruing (f) which did not positively disclose that the balance may increase due to interest and fees, (g) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of the action. Judge Reyes approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class. He is informed notice of the settlement was successfully sent to 2,260 class members of the total 2,379. One person in the Settlement Class requested exclusion, and zero objections were filed or received. Each Class Member whose notice was successfully mailed will receive a check for $174.84 from the $68,000 Class Settlement Fund. Costs associated with class notice and administration will be deducted from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Judge Reyes ordered the Defendant to pay the total amount of $68,000 to the third-party class administrator, First Class, Inc., within 21 days after the Effective Date, for the establishment of the Class Settlement Fund and for distribution to the Settlement Class Members, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Payments for notice and administration of the settlement, an incentive to the class representative, and attorney's fees will be deducted from the Class Settlement Fund. The remaining amount will be distributed equally among the 204 Settlement Class Members whose claim forms were successfully mailed. The Judge approved (i) an award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs to the Class Counsel in the amount of $20,333.33; (ii) a payment of $5,000,00 to Marina Yadgarova for her actual and statutory damages and for her service as the Class Representative; and (iii) a payment of $7,000,00 to the third-party class administrator, First Class, Inc., for the costs associated with notice to the Settlement Class Members and administering the class settlement. These amounts will be deducted from the Class Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The terms of the Agreement are incorporated into the Order. The Order will operate as a final judgment and dismissal with prejudice of the claims in the action. Judge Reyes also approved the Legal Aid Society as the cy pres recipient, subject to the terms of the Agreement. The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement and the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 23, 2020 Final Approval Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy4w3d7c from Leagle.com. [*] Class Action Law Changes May Upend Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Eleanor Tyler, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that antitrust litigation, in the form of both public and private enforcement, looks to be entering a period of serious upheaval. Both the U.S. and the European Union have begun a fundamental policy debate about the purpose of their antitrust laws, their appropriate scope, and who should be allowed to enforce them. As this debate simmers among U.S. antitrust stakeholders, for the first time since the 1970s, the practice may be in for a tectonic shift. The four developments with the most potential to impact antitrust and trade litigation in 2021 are: 1. the introduction of possible new tools for enforcers, 2. the pending Supreme Court cases that could kick the FTC out of the consumer redress business, 3. the court battle over further narrowing the right to bring class actions, and 4. the rise of more enforcers worldwide. New Enforcement Tools? The U.S. and EU have separately proposed to give enforcers new tools to attack anticompetitive conduct. Both attempt to address how digital markets differ from traditional markets, and what many perceive as overweening power for a few digital platforms. The reforms could spell a reset of digital markets, and of antitrust law more broadly, in 2021 and beyond. A much-awaited report from the U.S. House of Representatives proposes sweeping legal changes to private and public antitrust enforcement to "recalibrate" U.S. antitrust law. It also puts a bullseye on the back of the tech giants. Among other recommendations, the House report advocates moving the U.S. toward an "abuse of dominance" standard like the EU's. It also supports legislatively erasing court precedents that have critically narrowed the path to winning lawsuits filed under Sherman Act § 2. Given that the last major change to U.S. antitrust statutes was in 1976, if enacted, the proposed changes likely would begin at least a decade of new lawsuits reckoning with concentrated markets. Meanwhile, the DOJ has challenged Google Inc.‘s online empire under the existing law, a rare public enforcement case alleging monopoly. The report's recommendations are controversial, and the outcome of the U.S. Senate elections likely will dictate whether legislative change materializes. David Cicilline (D-RI), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee, has pledged to propose legislation based on the report as soon as possible. In the EU, the Competition Commission has proposed a "new competition tool" that would permit the commission to intervene in tipping markets even before a player becomes dominant. The proposed new tool will be part of a Digital Markets Act for use in those markets, where the "winner take all" effect makes early action crucial to preserving competition. It could still be used outside of digital markets, because the tool isn't yet a reality. But even in limited use, the proposed tool represents a radical change for EU enforcers: an experiment in stopping potential problems to competition before they mature into legal violations. Threats to the FTC's Role 2021 could see a radical shift in the role of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in antitrust and consumer protection enforcement. During the 2020–2021 term, the Supreme Court will hear two cases (consolidated) addressing the power of the FTC to seek injunctive relief in federal court. If the FTC loses its powers to seek disgorgement and to address past wrongs through an injunction, it will be forced to rely more on its administrative process to bring claims. While that gives the Commission more of a direct say in how the law progresses, it could end the FTC's ability to seek redress for defrauded consumers, depriving the agency of a hammer in forcing companies to clean up their act. On the other hand, Commissioner Rohit Chopra encourages the agency to return to using its penalty power under 15 USC § 45(m), which explicitly allows the FTC to seek penalties in court against unfair conduct that violates a standing cease-and-desist order. Those penalties are limited to $10,000 per violation, however, and therefore aren't related to losses consumers have suffered. While the agency has options, new methods would lead to a sharp turn from its long-standing practices. A Harder Path for Class Actions Changes in class action law could also upend antitrust (and consumer protection) litigation, given the prominent role of big consumer and direct purchaser class actions in the field. Relying on two Supreme Court cases from the 1800s, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that any incentive award for named plaintiffs who participate in a lawsuit on behalf of the class is illegal. A complete ban on plaintiff incentive awards, if it stands, would make it more difficult to recruit plaintiffs to represent large classes, like those that bring antitrust consumer actions. Defendants are sure to appeal, and other cases will test these waters. The right to bring class actions is narrower each year. Next to criminal charges, big treble-damages civil actions are what keep U.S. antitrust defendants awake at night. If that threat is neutralized, private antitrust enforcement becomes an entirely different field. Flexing Enforcers, Growing Voices The growing role of newer enforcers outside of the U.S. continues to be an important trend to watch. The German Bundeskartellamt, armed with a new competition statute, continues to grow in international stature as a leading enforcer. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is likewise testing its strength against tech and telecom players and, according to Chair Rod Sims, needs an unfair trade practices law and additional powers to regulate market power in infrastructure. China is also flexing the muscles of its State Administration for Market Regulation, including potential changes to its antimonopoly law that target tech companies and new merger control rules. Increasingly, global companies face global antitrust enforcement. In 2021, expect to see more from the 132 countries in the international competition network. [GN] [*] Exposure to Stock Drop Class Actions Amounts to $13BB in 3Q --------------------------------------------------------------- Exposure of directors and officers of U.S. issuers and non-U.S. issuers to stock-drop securities class action (SCA) lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, amounts to $133.2 billion in 3Q'20. U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of U.S. issuers amounts to $101.8 billion in 3Q'20, an increase of 126.7% relative to 2Q'20. ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of non-U.S. issuers listed on U.S. exchanges that trade via American Depository Receipts (ADRs) amounts to $31.4 billion in 3Q'20, an increase of 285% relative to 2Q'20. According to the SAR Securities Class Action (SCA) Rule 10b-5 Exposure Report - 3Q 2020, the U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of U.S. issuers increased to 0.29% from 0.15% in 2Q'20, the highest exposure rate observed during the preceding four quarters. The U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate of U.S. issuers also increased to 1.16% from 1.04% in 2Q'20. "For U.S. issuers, Rule 10b-5 exposure in 3Q increased by $57 billion to $102 billion, driven in large part by the SCA against Intel which accounts for 40% of U.S. exposure. However, even after discounting the Intel case, total U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure increased 34% relative to 2Q. Non-U.S. issuers also exhibited a material increase of 285% in ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 exposure, or $23.2 billion, relative to 2Q," said Nessim Mezrahi, CEO of SAR. 3Q 2020 Securities Class Action Landscape observations: 40 U.S. issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. Based on the allegations presented in the first-filed SCA complaint against each defendant corporation, U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $101.8 billion. This is a notable increase of $57 billion, or 127% relative to 2Q'20. 15 U.S. large cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $93.7 billion, a material increase of $56.1 billion, or 149% relative to 2Q'20. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased by 15 basis points to 0.29%. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate increased to 1.81%, which is still below the rates exhibited in 1Q and 2Q of 2020. 7 U.S. mid cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $2.7 billion, an increase of $742 million, or 37% relative to 2Q'20. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased slightly by 4 basis points to 0.20%. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased to 1.17% in 3Q'20 from 1.29% in 2Q'20. 18 U.S. small cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $5.4 billion, a slight increase of about $106 million, or 2% relative to 2Q'20. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased by 1 basis point in 3Q'20 to 0.80%. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate increased to 0.89% in 3Q'20 from 0.85% in 2Q'20. 9 Non-U.S. issuers that trade via ADRs in the U.S. public markets were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure increased materially by $23.2 billion, or 285% relative to 2Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate in 3Q'20 amounts to 0.12%, a material increase of 9 basis points relative to 2Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate in 3Q'20 is 0.45%, 20 basis points higher relative to 2Q'20, and the highest recorded litigation rate against non-U.S. issuers in 2020. [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 ***