/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210121.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, January 21, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 10
Headlines
ABOVE AND BEYOND: Edwards Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
ACM RESEARCH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: $7.5MM Deal Set to be Heard on April 13
ADIDAS AMERICA: Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
AMAZON WEB: Faces Class Action Over Decision to Drop Parler
AMAZON.COM INC: Fremgen Alleges Conspiracy to Raise eBooks' Prices
AMERICAN PACIFIC: Avedyan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
AMIR ZAKIRALI: Faces Kizziar Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Arkansas
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Angiano Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
ATLANTIC INNOVATIONS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
B.L. DOWNEY: Rimmer BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
B.L. DOWNEY: Singleton BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BARON TRANSPORTATION: Hakobyan Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages & Expenses
BLACK RIFLE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: 401(k) Plan Class Action Heads to Trial
BRUMATE INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
C PEPPER: District of Kansas Narrows Claims in Flinn Class Suit
CD PROJEKT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CHARLES DANIELS: Weizenecker Bid to Certify Class of Inmates Tossed
CHARTWELL RETIREMENT: Diamond and Diamond Files COVID-19 Class Suit
COMPLETE HYDROPONICS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONNECTICUT: Awaits Approval of Hep-C Class Action Settlement
DIGITAL RISK: Aguilar FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
ENDO INT'L: Bucks County Seeks Lead Role in Securities Fraud Suit
EXTENDICARE INC: Class Action Seeks More Than $200 Mil. in Damages
EXTENDICARE INC: Law Firms Work Together to Advance Class Action
EYEMED VISION: Tate Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Info
GREEN THUMB: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 15 Deadline
HAMILTON, ON: Among Named Defendants in COVID-19 Class Action
HOMELEGANCE LA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alaniz Alleges
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Garrett Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Schroeder Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
INTEGRA CONNECT: Smith Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
JEANRICH MANAGEMENT: Tenecela Sues Over Unpaid Wages
KIMBRELL'S OF NORTH: Miller TCPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
KONICA MINOLTA: Cezus Discrimination Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
LEGATOS HOLDINGS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LOEW'S HOTELS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Court Consolidates New York Class Suits
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Proposed Securities Class Suit in Quebec Underway
LOOPS BEAUTY: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LOWE'S HOME: Johnson Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
MAJOR ENERGY: Defrauds Electric Consumers, Glikin Suit Claims
MASTERCARD INC: Leigh Day Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
MEDIFAST INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MGM NATIONAL: Day Suit Alleges Tip Skimming
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Court Ruling
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Werner Sues Over Misleading Nutrition Drink Ad
NEW MILLENNIUM: Farrell Sues Over Mislabeled Water Purifiers
NEW YORK DINER: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Rodea Suit Alleges
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss in Securities Suit Discussed
PARKING REIT: Term Sheet Entered in Maryland Class Suit
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Luna Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
PENUMBRA INC: Williams Sues Over Share Price Drop
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Werzberger Sues Over Deceptive Debt Letters
R & R CAR: Henderson Sues Over Transmission of Spam Calls and Texts
RELIABLE ONE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
RING LLC: To Bring End-to-End Video Encryption After Class Action
RWJ BARNABAS: Cardoso Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
SALLY BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coles Suit Says
SEA LIMITED: Securities Suit Settlement to be Heard on April 1
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway
SLIP SILK: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SOLARWINDS CORP: Faces Azpurua Suit Over Drop in Share Price
SONA NANOTECH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 16 Deadline
STANDARD LIFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Simmons et al. Claim
STORED VALUE: Court Approves Debit Card Class Action Settlement
TAISHO INC: Victoriano Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Faces Friedman Suit Over False Collection Letters
TRICIDA INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TRICIDA INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 8 Deadline
UMAR SERVICES: Staley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
VEE-ZEE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
VILLAREAL DRYWALL: Mejia FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
XILINX INC: Stein Sues Over Incomplete and Misleading Statements
*********
ABOVE AND BEYOND: Edwards Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABOVE AND BEYOND HOME CARE OF CENTRAL
ARKANSAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00029-KGB (E.D. Ark.,
January 12, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Patient Care
Associate (PCA) from April 2019 until November 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were classified by the Defendant as an hourly
employee and non-exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
However, the Defendant regularly failed to pay them a proper
overtime rate when they worked over 40 hours in a week.
Moreover, the Defendant had a practice of shaving hours from the
Plaintiff's and PCAs' time. The number of hours on their paystubs
showed less than the number of hours they submitted to the
Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff and other PCAs were deprived
of compensation for all hours they worked, including overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week, the suit says.
Above and Beyond Home Care of Central Arkansas, Inc. provide aid to
the elderly and disabled in their own home by assisting with home
maintenance, personal care, companionship, and supervision. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
April Rheaume, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: april@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ACM RESEARCH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 19, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired ACM Research, Inc. ("ACM Research" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ACMR) securities between March 6, 2019 and
October 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your ACM Research investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/acm-research-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On October 8, 2020, J Capital Research issued a report alleging,
among other things, that the Company is "over-reporting both
revenue and profit." Citing site visits and more than 40
interviews, the report stated that "[w]hat real profit the company
has is apparently being siphoned off to related parties." The
report also concluded revenue is overstated by 15-20% and claimed
to have "evidence that undisclosed related parties are diverting
revenue and profit from the company."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.09, or 1.52%, to
close at $70.79 per share on October 8, 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) the Company's revenue and profits had been diverted to
undisclosed related parties; (2) accordingly, the Company had
materially overstated its revenues and profits; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ACM Research securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
February 19, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS: $7.5MM Deal Set to be Heard on April 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP issued the following statement:
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PLYMOUTH COUNTY CONTRIBUTORY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
WILLIAM ERICSON; MARTHA J. DEMSKI;
IVAN LIEBERBURG; GREGORY T. WENT;
MICHAEL F. BIGHAM; DAVID L. MAHONEY;
JOHN MACPHEE; RAJIV PATNI; JENNIFER J. RHODES;
ALFRED G. MERRIWEATHER;
CHRISTOPHER B. PRENTISS; RICHARD KING;
MARDI C. DIER; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE,
FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED;
LEERINK PARTNERS LLC; and EVERCORE GROUP L.L.C.,
Defendants.
Case No. RG19018715
CLASS ACTION
Assigned for All Purposes to Dept. 23
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
Honorable Brad Seligman
Dept. 23
Date Action Filed: May 13, 2019
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED ADAMAS PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. ("ADAMAS" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DIRECTLY IN ADAMAS'
JANUARY 24, 2018, SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING ("SPO") PURSUANT TO
ADAMAS' NOVEMBER 21, 2016, REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND JANUARY 24,
2018, PROSPECTUS SUPPLEMENT AND ALL MATERIALS INCORPORATED THEREIN
(COLLECTIVELY, THE "OFFERING DOCUMENTS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 13,
2021 at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Brad Seligman at the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, 1221 Oak Street,
Oakland, CA 94612, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
November 23, 2020 ("Stipulation"), of the above-captioned action
("Action") for $7,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Plan of Allocation
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(3) to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out
of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below),
and if so in what amount; (4) to reimburse Plaintiff for its time
and expense in representing the Class, and if so in what amount;
and (5) to enter the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation.
This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those
Persons or Entities who purchased the common stock of Adamas
directly in Adamas' January 24, 2018, SPO against Adamas, certain
of its officers and directors, and the SPO Underwriters for
allegedly making materially untrue or misleading statements in the
Offering Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the SPO, which allegedly
damaged Class Members. Defendants deny all of Plaintiff's
allegations.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ADAMAS COMMON STOCK DIRECTLY IN THE
JANUARY 24, 2018, SPO, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than May 8, 2021)
or submitted electronically at www.AdamasShareholderSettlement.com
no later than May 8, 2021. Your failure to submit your Proof of
Claim by May 8, 2021, will subject your claim to possible rejection
and may preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in
connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a Member
of the Class and do not request exclusion, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you
submit a Proof of Claim. Plaintiff's Counsel represent you and
other Members of the Class. If you want to be represented by your
own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement or exclude
yourself from the Class), and a Proof of Claim form, you may obtain
these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at
www.AdamasShareholderSettlement.com, or by writing to:
Adamas Shareholder Litigation Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173028
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Phone: (877) 203-8960
www.AdamasShareholderSettlement.com
Inquiries may also be made to a representative of Plaintiff's
Counsel:
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
John T. Jasnoch
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (800) 332-2259
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
MARCH 12, 2021, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE
CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION
EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND/OR THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES.
ANY WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MAY BE SENT TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR NO
LATER THAN MARCH 12, 2021, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE
NOTICE. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION IN
ORDER TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING TO PRESENT YOUR OBJECTION TO THE
COURT.
DATED: JANUARY 14, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
HONORABLE BRAD SELIGMAN
ADIDAS AMERICA: Lopez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MONSERRAT LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC. and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 56-2020-00547592-CU-OE-VTA, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Ventura to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00447 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay overtime, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to provide required meal periods,
failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when due,
and failure to provide seating.
Adidas America, Inc. is a sports footwear, apparel and equipment
company, headquartered in Portland, Oregon. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert S. Blumberg, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
E-mail: rblumberg@littler.com
- and –
Ashley J. Brick, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
E-mail: abrick@littler.com
AMAZON WEB: Faces Class Action Over Decision to Drop Parler
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas High, writing for Daily Camera, reports that a group of
plaintiffs, including a Colorado man, are bringing a class action
lawsuit against Amazon Web Services Inc., a web-hosting and
cloud-computing subsidiary of Amazon Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN), as a
result of AWS' decision to drop the controversial Parler social
media platform after the riot at the U.S. Capitol that was inflamed
by President Donald Trump and left five people dead.
Parler, which is known for taking a more hands-off approach than
competitors such as Facebook and Twitter when it comes to political
or hate speech, has become increasingly popular among right-wing
extremists, some of whom are alleged to have used the site to plan
the Jan. 6 attack in Washington and post violent threats about
political adversaries.
AWS stopped hosting Parler after the platform was banned by Apple
Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Google (Nasdad: GOOGL) mobile application
stores for failure to crack down on incendiary posts.
The lawsuit, filed on Jan. 12 in U.S. District Court in Denver by
attorneys representing Parler users Charles Hoyt of Colorado,
Rodney Dugar of California, Victoria Stilz of Nevada, Dwayne Bronk
of Illinois and Nicole Bailey of North Carolina, claims the
plaintiffs "suffer(ed) highly unpleasant mental reactions, outrage,
anger, frustration, shame, humiliation, chagrin, disappointment,
worry, inconvenience, and/or severe emotional distress" as result
of the loss of access to the social media site.
The suit also claims AWS' actions intentionally made Parler unable
to maintain the terms of its user agreements with posters on the
site. The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers with Denver-based
Boesen Law LLC and Irwin Fraley PLLC, are suing on behalf of a
potential class made up of all roughly 12 million Parlor users.
They argue the user agreement amounts to a contract.
"The plaintiffs will respectfully decline comment on the lawsuit at
this time as it has just been filed and will need time to be
developed and litigated," attorney Brad Irwin told BizWest in an
email on Jan. 13.
AWS also declined to provide additional comment beyond providing
BizWest with a copy of its court filing in response to a U.S.
District Court of Washington suit brought against the firm directly
by Parler -- a legal action distinct from the class action lawsuit
filed in Colorado.
"This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints,"
the filing said. "It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade.
Instead, this case is about Parler's demonstrated unwillingness and
inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content
that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning
the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and
private citizens. There is no legal basis in AWS's customer
agreements or otherwise to compel AWS to host content of this
nature."
AWS lawyers said the firm suspended Parler "as a last resort to
prevent further access to such content, including plans for
violence to disrupt the impending presidential transition."
Furthermore, AWS cited Section 230 of the Communications Act of
1934, which shields certain tech companies from legal liability.
The filing cites a multitude of posts from Parlor users that
threaten violence and death against Democrats, technology company
executives, athletes, law enforcement and racial minorities.
The Colorado suit, to which AWS has yet to respond, demands
unspecified monetary damages and an injunction that forces AWS to
restore Parler to its servers. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Fremgen Alleges Conspiracy to Raise eBooks' Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON FREMGEN, MARY CHRISTOPHERSON-JUVE, DENISE DELEON, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00351 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has entered into
anticompetitive agreements such as most favored nations clauses
with five publishing companies to ensure that Amazon.com faces no
competition in the U.S. retail market for trade electronic books
(eBooks). The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon and the publishers
agreed to price restraints that cause the Plaintiffs and other
consumers to overpay for eBooks purchased from the publishers
through a retail platform other than Amazon.com. Had Amazon and its
co-conspirators only raised prices on Amazon.com, consumers would
be free to shop for lower-priced eBooks on other retailer sites,
the suit says.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Nathanial Tarnor, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
322 8th Avenue, Suite 801
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 752-5455
Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
E-mail: Nathant@hbsslaw.com
- and –
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
AMERICAN PACIFIC: Avedyan Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Pacific
Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Arman Avedyan,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Pacific Mortgage Corporation doing business as: Preferred
Rate, a California corporation, Case No. 2:21-at-00038 (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
American Pacific Mortgage Corporation --
https://www.apmortgage.com/ -- provides loans. The Company offers
moving and buying and mortgage loan, lower payment, and consolidate
debt services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua E. Moyer, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
401 W. A Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 307-9129
Email: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com
AMIR ZAKIRALI: Faces Kizziar Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES KIZZIAR and RUSSELL POWELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMIR ZAKIRALI,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02016-PKH (W.D. Ark., January 14, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to
compensate the Plaintiffs at applicable minimum wage rate and
overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Mr. Kizziar has been employed by the Defendant as a cook from
October 2020 to the present.
Mr. Powell has been employed by the Defendant as a desk clerk from
September 2020 to the present. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Angiano Consumer Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DENISE ANGIANO; CHARLEY KARPINSKI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV
WORLDWIDE, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV45069,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00435 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of
the California False Advertising Law, the California Business and
Professions Code, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act by
mislabeling non-alcoholic beer bottles and packages.
Anheuser-Busch Inbev Worldwide, Inc. is a manufacturer of alcoholic
and non-alcoholic beverages, headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David H. Stern, Esq.
Alex E. Spjute, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
US Bank Tower
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 4900
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 808-5736
Facsimile: (213) 808-5760
E-mail: david.stern@dechert.com
alex.spjute@dechert.com
ATLANTIC INNOVATIONS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Innovations,
LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Atlantic Innovations, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00413 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Atlantic Innovations, LLC -- http://www.atlanticinnovations.com/--
is located in Amherst, New Hampsire, United States and is part of
the Advertising & Marketing Services Industry.[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
B.L. DOWNEY: Rimmer BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIO RIMMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. B.L. DOWNEY COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2020
CH 07531, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook
County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00246 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting,
capturing, storing, and/or otherwise obtaining the Plaintiff's and
Class members' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
without first obtaining their written consent; failing to develop
and adhere to a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines
for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information; and systemically and automatically disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise disseminating Plaintiff's and Class
members' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without
consent.
B.L. Downey Company LLC is a powder coating service company located
in Westchester, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Derek G. Barella, Esq.
Paula M. Ketcham, Esq.
Michael P. Wissa, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 258-5500
Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
E-mail: DBarella@schiffhardin.com
PKetcham@schiffhardin.com
MWissa@schiffhardin.com
B.L. DOWNEY: Singleton BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELMER SINGLETON JR. and THEODORE DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B.L.
DOWNEY COMPANY LLC, Case No. 2020 CH 07172, was removed from the
Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00236 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting,
capturing, storing, and/or otherwise obtaining the Plaintiffs' and
Class members' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information
without first obtaining their written consent; failing to develop
and adhere to a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines
for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information; and systemically and automatically disclosing,
redisclosing, or otherwise disseminating Plaintiffs' and Class
members' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without
consent.
B.L. Downey Company LLC is a powder coating service company located
in Westchester, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Derek G. Barella, Esq.
Paula M. Ketcham, Esq.
Michael P. Wissa, Esq.
SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 258-5500
Facsimile: (312) 258-5600
E-mail: DBarella@schiffhardin.com
PKetcham@schiffhardin.com
MWissa@schiffhardin.com
BARON TRANSPORTATION: Hakobyan Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages & Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTUSH HAKOBYAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARON TRANSPORTATION INC., OLEG RAZMERITA,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV01561 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
and the California's Business and Professions Code including
misclassification, unfair competition, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to indemnify, waiting time penalties, wage statement
penalties, recordkeeping penalties, unreimbursed business expenses,
and civil penalties.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a truck driver in
California.
Baron Transportation Inc. is a freight shipping and trucking
company based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aram Rostomyan, Esq.
ROSTOMYAN LAW, PC
790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 440-1007
Facsimile: (844) 273-9007
E-mail: aram@rostomyanlaw.com
BLACK RIFLE: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Black Rifle Coffee
Company LLC. The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Black Rifle Coffee Company LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00260
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Black Rifle Coffee Company -- https://www.blackriflecoffee.com/ --
is a SOF veteran-owned coffee company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: 401(k) Plan Class Action Heads to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a class
action accusing BlackRock Institutional Trust Co. of siphoning
improper fees from its employees' 401(k) plan is headed to trial
after a federal judge in the Northern District of California said
there was a genuine dispute over whether the asset manager followed
its own policies in running the plan.
A trial is needed to determine whether BlackRock complied with its
401(k) plan investment policy statement, which directed the company
to obtain a legal opinion before offering BlackRock-affiliated
funds in the plan, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California held on Jan.
12. [GN]
BRUMATE INC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brumate, Inc. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Brumate,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00256 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BruMate -- https://www.brumate.com/ -- offers Insulated Can
Coolers, Tumblers and Drinkware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
C PEPPER: District of Kansas Narrows Claims in Flinn Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DAVID FLINN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. C PEPPER LOGISTICS LLC and LANTER
DELIVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-CV-02215-JAR-KGG (D. Kan.),
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas issued a Nunc
Pro Tunc Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part
the Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint.
Plaintiff David Flinn brings the putative class action against
Defendants C Pepper and Lanter as joint employers, alleging the
Defendants misclassified their truck driver employees as
independent contractors. Before the Court are Defendant Lanter's
Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Court grants in part and denies in part Flinn's motion to amend
by allowing him to amend Count II. The motion to amend Count I is
denied as futile. The motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
is, therefore, moot.
Background
Lanter provides overnight unattended delivery service of
time-sensitive parts for major auto, agriculture, and heavy-duty
truck original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and industrial
supply and equipment distributors. C Pepper is a U.S. Department of
Transportation-registered motor carrier that provides trucking and
transfer services. Lanter created a business model in which it
props up and controls what it calls "dedicated carrier partners,"
including C Pepper. Lanter exercised direction and control over
almost every aspect of C Pepper's business operations.
James Pepper used to be a direct employee of Lanter. However,
Lanter came up with a scheme to prop him up as a strawman, through
a limited liability company that he owned (C Pepper), but whose
business, payroll, accounting, and financial operations Lanter
effectively directed and controlled, to employ truck drivers for
Lanter's business. Acting in the interest of C Pepper, in
association and conspiracy with Lanter, and under Lanter's
direction and control, James Pepper allowed and helped facilitate
the unlawful conduct alleged by the Plaintiff.
The Defendants share the same corporate headquarters at 1600 Wayne
Lanter Ave., in Madison, Illinois. The Defendants hire individuals
to drive established delivery routes out of Lanter distribution
centers in numerous states. Flinn and other delivery drivers
reported to work at and drove trucks out of Lanter distribution
centers. Flinn and other delivery drivers were issued Lanter fuel
cards to pay for fuel. Fuel costs were later charged back to
drivers as itemized deductions on the paystubs issued to them.
Mr. Flinn alleges generally that Defendants Lanter, C Pepper, and
James Pepper fraudulently misclassified drivers as independent
contractors, willfully issued fraudulent paystubs to Flinn and
other delivery drivers, and willfully filed and issued fraudulent
tax documents showing that Flinn and other delivery drivers were
independent contractors, rather than employees. The Plaintiff
alleges two counts for relief against all the Defendants: (1)
fraudulent filing of information returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
Section 7434; and (2) violation of state wage laws.
Discussion
Lanter moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on the basis
that Flinn's tax claim fails to plead fraud with particularity
because it alleges that C Pepper, and not Lanter, issued the 1099
forms that allegedly overreported Flinn's compensation. Lanter
further argues that the wage claim fails because Flinn fails to
sufficiently allege an employment relationship with Lanter. Flinn
seeks to amend to add James Pepper as a defendant, to add facts to
support his assertion that Lanter is a joint employer with C Pepper
and James Pepper, and to clarify his wage claims.
Lanter first opposes the motion for leave to amend based on undue
delay and prejudice because Flinn's counsel did not alert its
counsel to potential amendments before Lanter filed its motion to
dismiss, and instead waited until the motion to dismiss was fully
briefed before moving for leave to amend without adequate
explanation for the delay. The Court declines to deny leave to
amend on the basis of undue delay under the circumstances of the
case.
To be sure, Chief District Judge Lulie A. Robinson notes, it would
have been more efficient for Flinn's motion for leave to amend to
accompany his opposition to the motion to dismiss -- his decision
to wait until one month after the motion to dismiss went under
advisement certainly delayed this Court's ability to rule quickly.
Nonetheless, there has been no scheduling order in the case yet
and, thus, no deadline set for amendments. And nothing in the
federal rules prohibits a party from moving for leave to amend
after a dispositive motion is briefed. Flinn did not file the
motion for leave out of time, and given the liberal amendment
standard in Rule 15, this Court is not inclined to deny leave to
amend on based on delay under the circumstances.
In Count I (fraudulent filing of information returns in violation
of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434), Flinn alleges in the proposed Second
Amended Complaint that all the Defendants violated Section 7434 by
issuing 1099 forms to him and the class members that overreported
the amount of compensation paid to them with knowledge that Flinn
and the class members were employees, rather than independent
contractors.
Lanter moves to dismiss under the first element, arguing that the
First Amended Complaint fails as to Lanter because it alleges only
that C Pepper issued the 1099. In the proposed Second Amended
Complaint, Flinn alleges that all Defendants issued the 1099s and
substantially overreported the amount of compensation paid to Flinn
and other class members. Lanter argues that the Second Amended
Complaint is futile because only "filers" can be liable under 26
U.S.C. Section 7434, and there are no facts alleged that Lanter was
a filer.
Judge Robinson explains that the statute requires that the
defendant at least willfully cause a fraudulent information return
to be filed, and Rule 9 requires that fraud be pled with
particularity. Yet, there are no factual allegations in support of
the Defendants' respective roles in issuing the 1099s. In all of
the cases that extend Section 7434 liability to corporate officers,
there were facts alleged that an agent took part in preparing or
submitting the filing information on behalf of the principal.
There are no such facts alleged here, either in the First Amended
Complaint or the proposed Second Amended Complaint, Judge Robinson
opines. Accordingly, Flinn's motion for leave to amend Count I to
generically attribute filing conduct to Defendants as a whole is
denied as futile.
Proposed Count II asserts a claim that the Defendants made improper
and unlawful deductions from Flinn's and other Class Members'
wages, in violation of various state wage payment laws and common
law. Lanter argues that both pleadings lump together all Defendants
and fail to explain the conduct attributable to each one. Moreover,
Lanter argues that both pleadings are devoid of factual allegations
that support joint employment.
Flinn does not identify the relevant state law for his wage claim
in the proposed Second Amended Complaint. In his response to
Lanter's motion to dismiss, he cites the Kansas Wage Payment Act
("KWPA") and the Illinois Wage Payment Act ("IWPA"). Both statutes
require an employment relationship in order to apply.
Although the facts in the proposed Second Amended Complaint fail to
touch on some of the factors used under Kansas and Illinois law,
Flinn alleges enough facts under either body of law to plausibly
support an employment relationship, Judge Robinson holds. As to
Illinois law, Flinn alleges, among other things, facts suggesting
that Lanter plays a role in setting drivers' wages, work hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment, and that Lanter plays a
role in the day-to-day supervision and control of delivery drivers
such as Flinn. Given these allegations, the Court finds that Flinn
has alleged sufficient facts to support an employment relationship
with Lanter under the KWPA and IWPA. Thus, the Plaintiff is granted
leave to amend as to Count II.
The Court, therefore, rules that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Class Action Complaint is granted in part
and denied in part. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is
granted as to Count II; it is denied as to Count I. The Plaintiff
will file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with the Court's
ruling.
Lanter's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint is denied as
moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Nunc Pro Tunc Memorandum and Order
dated Jan. 11, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ben9av
from Leagle.com.
CD PROJEKT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Jan. 13 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
OTGLY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=12122&wire=1
QS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12122&wire=1
TCDA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12122&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY)
OTGLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased January 16,
2020 - December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form?prid=12122&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, CD
Projekt S.A. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: Throughout the class period,
defendants were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually
unplayable on the current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems
due to an enormous number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would
remove Cyberpunk 2077 from the Playstation store, and Sony,
Microsoft and the Company would be forced to offer full refunds for
the game; (3) consequently, the Company would suffer reputational
and pecuniary harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
(NYSE:QS)
QS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 27, 2020
- December 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12122&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to
its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density
were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to
be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary
to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCDA)
TCDA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 4,
2019 - October 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12122&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tricida,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was
materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely
that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
CHARLES DANIELS: Weizenecker Bid to Certify Class of Inmates Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD ALLAN WEIZENECKER,
v. CHARLES DANIELS, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00653-MMD-CLB (D.
Nev.), the Hon. Judge Miranda M. Du entered an order:
1. deferring a decision on the application to proceed in
forma pauperis;
2. directing the Clerk of the Court to file the Complaint and
send Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the Complaint;
3. dismissing without prejudice the portion of claim 1,
alleging Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement
violations based on hot water;
4. directing that the portion of claim 1, alleging Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement violations based on
inadequate heat, will proceed against the Defendant
Reynolds;
-- This claim will proceed against Defendants Russell and
Daniels for injunctive relief only.
5. denying the motion to certify class; and
6. deferring a decision on the motion for preliminary
injunction and Temporary Restraining Order.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff files a motion to turn this action
into a class action. The Court denies this motion. Pro se litigants
have the right to plead and conduct their own cases personally.
However, pro se litigants have no authority to represent anyone
other than themselves. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1105 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995). In his Complaint, the Plaintiff sues
multiple Defendants for events that took place while the Plaintiff
was incarcerated at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC).
The Plaintiff sues the Defendants NDOC Director Charles Daniels,
ASO financial officer Kathryn Reynolds, and Warden Perry Russell.
The Plaintiff brings one claim and seeks declaratory, injunctive,
and monetary relief."
The Plaintiff alleges the following: He is currently housed in Unit
10A at NNCC. There are currently 140 inmates in that unit housed in
a "warehouse" style setting. There are two drinking fountains in
that unit, but both are covered in plastic and labeled "do not
use." There are 10 bathroom sinks in the unit but 3 are inoperable.
Approximately 100 of the 140 inmates in that unit, work for the
prison system and must report to work at 6:45 a.m. each morning,
Monday through Thursday. There is "insufficient" hot water and
operable bathroom sinks for all the inmate workers to shower, wash
hands, and brush their teeth before reporting to work each morning.
There is also insufficient hot water for each inmate to receive a
hot shower prior to or after work on a daily basis.
NNCC is part of a prison complex located in Carson City. The
correctional center was established in 1964 and is managed by the
Nevada Department of Corrections. The medium-security center housed
1,444 male and 9 female inmates as of September 2010.
A copy of the Court's screening order dated Jan. 14, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bS2Pja at no
extra charge.[CC]
CHARTWELL RETIREMENT: Diamond and Diamond Files COVID-19 Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond and Diamond Lawyers LLP disclosed that the number of people
who have died during the COVID-19 pandemic who were residents of
Long-Term Care homes in Ontario is near 3000 people.
Diamond and Diamond Lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of victims who died due to avoidable negligence.
The latest suit names major long-term care providers across Ontario
including but not limited to Chartwell, Extendicare, and Sienna
owned facilities. The half a billion dollar claim also takes the
bold action of naming the Ontario government as well as several
municipal bodies in Hamilton, Toronto, Essex, Ottawa and more. It
is the first suit of this type that claims COVID-19 death
culpability by multiple branches of government.
"Nothing was learned in round one," said Darryl Singer, Head of
Commercial and Civil litigation at Diamond and Diamond Lawyers.
"This is paired with the fact that vaccine delays are causing
deaths in these facilities daily. The government, along with these
providers, has failed and continues to turn their back on these
families."
More than 11 homes in Ontario are noted on the claim including:
-- Sunnycrest Nursing Home
-- Anson Place Care Centre
-- Elk Grove Living Centre
-- Ina Grafton Gage Home of Toronto
-- Royal Rose Place
-- Mark haven Home for Seniors
-- Mon Sheong Home for the Aged
-- Village of Humber Heights
-- Almonte Country Haven
-- The Perley and Rideau Veteran's Health Centre
-- Sherbourne Place
-- St George Care Community Centre
-- Tendercare Living Centre
The class action is brought forth on behalf of all persons who have
lived, or are currently living, at one of the named residences and
also names multiple homes owned by parent company Chartwell. The
size of the Plaintiff class is growing hourly as the firm continues
to field calls from grieving families across the province.
The plaintiffs allege that the facilities lacked both proper
sanitation protocols and adequate testing. The action also alleges
that measures to keep residents safe were not properly disseminated
to residents and their families.
"If not for the utter disregard of human life and negligence of
this home, my cousin would still be alive," said Plaintiff, Cindy
Lund. "We are devastated."
Diamond and Diamond invites those who feel they have experienced
insufficient care at the hands of a nursing home facility to
contact their firm. The firm expects that further class action
suits will be launched in the near future as the pandemic continues
to spread across the country. [GN]
COMPLETE HYDROPONICS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Complete Hydroponics,
LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Complete Hydroponics,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00434 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Complete Hydroponics -- https://completehydroponics.com/ -- is a
Hydroponic Nutrient Solution designed to bring the best out of
plant's roots, fruits, and flowers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CONNECTICUT: Awaits Approval of Hep-C Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Rondinone, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that
state lawyers are awaiting final legislative approval of a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit that could ensure millions of
dollars worth of life-saving treatment for hundreds of inmates
afflicted with hepatitis C.
The settlement, in excess of $2.5 million, secures comprehensive
testing of inmates and treatment for those suffering from the
deadly, but curable virus.
As part of the settlement, the state Department of Correction
offered its first look into how pervasive the virus is among
inmates when it submitted a report showing that since Aug. 6, 2019,
the department has tested 14,082 inmates and found 1,398 had the
virus. DOC has treated 475 inmates, the report shows.
"Because of this lawsuit, 475 inmates have received life-saving
medicine," said attorney Ken Krayeske, who along with attorney
DeVaughn Ward represented the inmates. "Attorney Ward and I are
feeling like we are pretty lucky litigators to have that kind of
impact on people's lives."
The plaintiffs and the state told a federal judge they had reached
a proposed settlement in November, but it requires approval from
the legislature before it can be finalized, records show. Krayeske
said the legislature has 30 days to vote on the settlement or it
will be approved.
The Department of Correction said on Jan. 13 it was unable to
comment further on the case since the settlement still needs
legislative approval and will then go in front of a judge for a
fairness hearing.
The exact cost of testing and treating inmates suffering from
hepatitis C, a blood-borne virus that harms the liver, was not
immediately clear, but a 2019 study from the legislature's fiscal
office estimated testing to cost more than $400,000 and, if
required, treatment could cost between $43 million and $158
million.
On average, the cost of direct-acting antiviral medications, which
are at least 90% effective against hepatitis C, is $25,000, so the
cost to the state hinge son the number of inmates that require
treatment.
[Breaking News] State police searching sprawling Farmington home
once owned by Fotis Dulos' development company »
In the face of the class-action suit, DOC adopted a policy in the
summer of 2019 to test and treat for hepatitis C within the inmate
population.
"In keeping with our commitment to provide quality health care to
all offenders . . . the department has developed a plan to test and
treat all offenders for the exposure and/or presence of the
hepatitis C virus," then-Commissioner Rolland Cook wrote in a
department-wide memo. Despite availability, more than 3,500 inmates
have opted out of testing.
The lawsuit requires DOC to adhere to the testing and treatment
policy until at least the spring of 2022.
Krayeske and Ward first filed the suit against the state in July
2018 on behalf of several inmates that said they had not received
treatment for the deadly virus.
In an effort to have the lawsuit dismissed last year, Assistant
State Attorney General Steven R. Strom argued "there are no
reported decisions in the United States Supreme Court or this
circuit that would clearly establish a right to the treatment
plaintiffs seek or the other relief contained in their complaint."
The settlement, once approved, would mark another legal victory in
an effort to properly treat hepatitis C in correction facilities. A
number of lawsuits have been filed and settled regarding treatment
in other states. Notably, Colorado agreed in 2018 to spend $41
million to treat 2,200 inmates with hepatitis C.
"This is a small step in the long walk to health care for all and
it shouldn't have to take litigation to get the state of
Connecticut to the right thing," Krayeske said on Jan. 13. [GN]
DIGITAL RISK: Aguilar FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JACKIE AGUILAR and RONALD BRYANT, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. DIGITAL RISK MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC; DIGITAL RISK, LLC; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; MPHASIS LIMITED; MPHASIS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Case No. RG20076409, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 14, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00354 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act, and the California Business and Professions Code by
failing to provide proper disclosures and failing to provide
summary of rights.
Digital Risk Mortgage Services, LLC is a company that provides
mortgage services, headquartered in Maitland, Florida.
Digital Risk, LLC is a provider of mortgage and financial services
based in Maitland, Florida.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a financial services company based in
Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Mphasis Limited is an information technology (IT) services company
based in Bangalore, India.
Mphasis Corporation is a company that provides information
technology services based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Glenn L. Briggs, Esq.
Theresa A. Kading, Esq.
KADING BRIGGS LLP
100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 450-8040
Facsimile: (949) 450-8033
E-mail: gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com
tkading@kadingbriggs.com
ENDO INT'L: Bucks County Seeks Lead Role in Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ullery, writing for Bucks County Courier Times, reports that
Bucks officials said on Jan. 12 the county lost more than $800,000
from its investment in a Malvern-based pharmaceutical company, and
now wants to be the leader in a class action securities fraud
lawsuit against the firm.
Court documents filed on Jan. 12 ask U.S. District Court Judge
Michael M. Baylson to appoint the Bucks County Employees Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff in the suit against Endo International PLC.
The county alleges the company engaged in "inherently risky and
unstable generic drug pricing practices" and other fraudulent
actions to mislead the county and other investors.
"Given our losses, the venue in Eastern Pennsylvania, and the
board's commitment to combating fraud, Bucks is the natural choice
to lead this fight," Bucks County Solicitor Joe Kahn said on Jan.
12.
Bucks County had previously purchased 25,417 shares of Endo stock,
and ended up losing an estimated $811,000, court documents state.
The original class action filing dates back to 2017 with the Park
Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago as the lead
plaintiff.
Neither court filing nor a Bucks County news release include the
detailed timeline of the case to this point.
The release does, however, claim the county retirement fund loss is
currently "the largest of all the plaintiffs."
Under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act cited in
the motion, courts can make the size of a plaintiff's financial
interest a deciding factor in choosing a lead plaintiff.
"Bucks County has a significant interest in holding Endo
accountable for the harm that their generic drug pricing practices
caused to the retirement fund, our fellow shareholders, and the
community as a whole," County Controller Neale Dougherty, who
serves as secretary of the Bucks County Employees Retirement System
Board, said.
The federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act provides a
number of provisions for the court to consider when appointing a
lead plaintiff, including those with the largest financial
interest.
A number of individuals and entities similar to the county's
retirement fund are included as plaintiffs in the original court
filing.
The county news release claims the total estimated losses are in
the hundreds of millions of dollars.
The securities class action by the retirement fund follows an
earlier lawsuit filed on behalf of the County of Bucks against
related Endo entities and other pharmaceutical companies for their
alleged misconduct in creating a nationwide opioid epidemic. That
litigation is pending in Pennsylvania state court.
If the county is named lead plaintiff, court documents indicate the
county would be working with attorneys from outside law firms
Saxton & Stump and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Lead plaintiffs are responsible for selecting the attorneys to
represent all plaintiffs, subject to the court's approval, under
the securities reform act.
Robbins Geller, a 200-attorney firm, is said to have recouped over
$2.5 billion in damages for investors in multiple class action
cases, court documents state. [GN]
EXTENDICARE INC: Class Action Seeks More Than $200 Mil. in Damages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
proposed class action against a prominent nursing-home company now
covers all its facilities, including those hit hardest by COVID-19,
and seeks more than $200 million in damages, according to a fresh
statement of claim.
The unproven claim alleges Extendicare failed to respond properly
to the pandemic and was negligent in the care of residents.
"The plaintiffs plead that the defendants behaved in a
reprehensible and unconscionable manner by failing to implement an
adequate COVID-19 response plan," the suit alleges.
"The defendants had a history of failing to implement properly, or
at all, an adequate infection-control program."
A similar $500-million lawsuit announced on Jan. 13 also names
Extendicare as well as other long-term care providers across
Ontario such as Chartwell and Sienna Senior Living.
The unproven claim also names the Ontario government along with
several cities, such as Toronto, Essex, Ottawa and Hamilton. The
suit is the first to allege multiple branches of government were
culpable for COVID-19 deaths, its lawyers said.
Extendicare either owns or operates 71 long-term care facilities in
Ontario. One of its homes, Tendercare Living Centre in east end
Toronto, has seen at least 73 residents die of COVID-19 -- one of
the worst-hit long-term care facilities in Canada.
A second Extendicare-run facility, Orchard Villa in Pickering,
Ont., has had at least 70 deaths, according to the latest
provincial data.
The proposed lead plaintiff, Peggy Hannon, is a disabled resident
of West End Villa in Ottawa. Her claim would include all residents
of an Extendicare facility as of Jan. 25, 2020 or, if they have
since died, their estates. Hannon's daughter, Suzanne Zagallai,
proposes to represent relatives.
"Extendicare owns or manages the two most severely devastated
long-term care facilities in Ontario," Stephen Birman, one of the
plaintiffs' lawyers said in a statement. "Extendicare continues to
be cited for infractions regarding infection control.
In a statement on Jan. 13, the company said it would respond to the
allegations through "appropriate legal channels" in due course.
"Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our
residents, and supporting our families and team members," the
statement said. "Our hearts are with our community and those who
have lost loved ones to this virus."
According to its corporate profile, the company's 23,000 employees
operate or provide contract services to a network of 122 long-term
care homes and retirement communities.
The proposed Extendicare class action was initially filed in
September only against West End Villa in Ottawa and sought $16
million.
Since then, COVID-19 has ravaged other facilities, including
Tendercare. Among those who have died there recently were Ping
Qiu.
"We have many questions as to why Tendercare was not prepared for
the second wave and why Tendercare was not able to protect my
grandmother," Reed Zhao, her grandson, said in a statement.
As recently as last month, a government inspection after a deadly
COVID-19 outbreak that affected residents and staff cited
Tendercare for violating infection-prevention protocols. Issues
included "inconsistent" controls and an inconsistent supply of
protective gear.
"As a result," the inspection report states, "the disease spread
rapidly throughout the home and there were a number of resident
deaths and also a number of residents who have tested positive."
Extendicare's latest financial statements show long-term-care
revenues rose to $523.4 million for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2020 -- from $477.1 million in the same period the previous year.
The company also recently announced shareholders would receive
$0.04 per share for December.
In a tweet last June, New Democrat Leader Jagmeet Singh denounced
Extendicare for short-changing residents to the benefit of
shareholders.
"During the worst of the crisis, Extendicare gave $10 million to
shareholders when only spending $300,000 on care of seniors and
while dozens of seniors died from in their care," Singh said.
The plaintiffs also note that Extendicare Care in the United States
paid $38 million dollars in October 2014 in a settlement after an
investigation into some of its American facilities. Soon after, the
company announced the sale of its American portfolio for US $870
million.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 13,
2021. [GN]
EXTENDICARE INC: Law Firms Work Together to Advance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Thomson Rogers and Will Davidson LLP are working
together to continue to advance a class action proceeding claiming
$200 million on behalf of residents of long-term care homes owned
and/or operated and/or managed by Extendicare (Canada) Inc.
("Extendicare").
Extendicare owns and/or operates and/or manages 71 long term care
facilities in Ontario, including Tendercare Living Centre in
Scarborough, Ontario.
The class action includes all residents of long-term care
facilities in Ontario which are owned and/or operated and/or
managed by Extendicare, including Tendercare Living Centre
("Tendercare") in Scarborough, Ontario.
As of January 11th, 2021, 73 residents have died at Tendercare as a
result of COVID-19. The tragic number of deaths at Tendercare now
exceeds the number of deaths at Orchard Villa in Pickering,
Ontario. These are the 2 most severely impacted homes in the
province by way of the number of fatalities. Both homes are managed
and operated by Extendicare.
One of the victims is Ping Qiu who is survived by her 3 children, 3
grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren. Ms. Qiu's grandson, Reed
Zhao, is seeking answers on behalf of his family to questions that
were not answered by Tendercare.
"I believe my family deserves to know what happened to my
grandmother. We were not provided with information regarding her
condition. We have many questions as to why Tendercare was not
prepared for the second wave and why Tendercare was not able to
protect my grandmother."
Tien Ngan Luu was another resident at Tendercare who tragically
passed away on December 27, 2020 after contracting COVID-19. Ms.
Luu leaves behind her brother, sister and 14 nieces and nephews,
including Kienmy Tran. Ms. Luu's family is haunted by the suffering
and what they believe to be a lack of basic care provided to the
residents at Tendercare.
"We are seeking answers to understand the events that transpired
leading up to her death, accountability and justice for her and
countless others who have died due to the neglect, lack of
direction and preparation by management."
A Ministry inspection was completed at Tendercare on December 16,
2020. The inspection report found that infection control practices
and the availability of PPE at Tendercare were inconsistent and
that as a result, COVID-19 "spread rapidly throughout the home"
resulting in widespread infection and death.
On October 10, 2014, the United States Justice Department announced
that Extendicare paid a $38 million dollar settlement after an
investigation into some of its American facilities, which revealed
substandard nursing services. When the matter settled the Associate
Attorney General stated that, "it is critically important that we
confront nursing home operators who put their own economic gain
ahead of the needs of their residents."
On November 7, 2014, Extendicare announced the sale of its American
portfolio of senior care communities for $870,000,000.00. It is
alleged that it intended to grow and expand its business in
Canada.
A few months later, the owners of Orchard Villa, Southbridge
Healthcare Inc., announced that they had hired Extendicare, who
they described as a "recognized leader in quality clinically based
services," to work at Orchard Villa.
Extendicare continued to pay dividends to their shareholders in
2020 during the pandemic consistent with the amounts in earlier
years.
NDP Federal Leader, Jagmeet Singh was quoted on June 20, 2020
commenting on Extendicare:
"This company didn't just earn profit, but had enough profit where
they gave dividends of $10 million."
"They were able to pay back dividends to shareholders of $10
million, meaning that they're spending that much less on their care
of their residents," Singh said.
"They're spending that much less on staffing, and equipment, and
supplies during COVID-19."
Thomson, Rogers and Will Davidson LLP confirm,
"The tragedy at Tendercare has resulted in an unspeakable number of
deaths. The Ministry of Long-Term Care findings that Extendicare
still does not have consistent infection control practices and PPE
are astounding. We have been in contact with dozens of families
from Tendercare and other Extendicare homes and they deserve
answers."
For more information, please contact:
Will Davidson LLP
Gary Will at gwill@willdavidson.ca (905-815-5802)
Michael Reid at mreid@willdavidson.ca (905-337-9748)
Thomson Rogers
Stephen Birman at sbirman@thomsonrogers.com (416-868 3137)
Robert Ben at rben@thomsonrogers.com (416-868-3168)
Lucy Jackson at ljackson@thomsonrogers.com (416-868-3154)
Stephen Birman
Thomson Rogers
416-868-3137
sbirman@thomsonrogers.com
Ruth Fernandes
Thomson Rogers
416-868-3190
rfernandes@thomsonrogers.com [GN]
EYEMED VISION: Tate Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Tate, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00036-DRC
(S.D. Ohio, Jan. 15, 2021), is brought against the Defendant based
on Defendant's failure to properly safeguard its customers'
personally identifiable information ("PII"), including current and
former customer's full names, residential addresses, dates of
birth, phone numbers, email addresses, etc.; and failed to properly
safeguard its customers' protected health information ("PHI")
exposed in the breach, including medical diagnoses and medical
treatment information.
According to the complaint, on June 24, 2020, as a result of
EyeMed's lax security and monitoring protocols, criminals gained
unauthorized access to an EyeMed email inbox. For seven days, these
criminals maintained unfettered access to the breached email
account. During this time, the email account was used to send
phishing emails to EyeMed's customers. The breach of the email
account also allowed the criminals to obtain the sensitive PII and
PHI of EyeMed's customers stored in the account. It was not until
July 1, 2020, that EyeMed discovered the breach and took steps to
block unauthorized access to the account. By that time, the PII and
PHI of its customers had already fallen into the hands of the
ill-intentioned criminals that accessed the account.
As a result of EyeMed's failures, the Plaintiff and the class
members are at a significant risk of identity theft, financial
fraud, and/or other identity-theft or fraud, imminently and for
years to come. Just as their PII and PHI was stolen because of its
inherent value in the black market, now the inherent value of
Plaintiff's and the class members' PII and PHI in the legitimate
market is significantly and materially decreased. To make matters
worse, the injuries described were exacerbated by EyeMed's failure
to timely inform and notify the Plaintiff and the class members of
the data breach and their injuries. By failing to provide adequate
notice, EyeMed intentionally prevented Plaintiff and prospective
class members from protecting themselves from the potential damages
arising out of the data breach, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms, and prevent their future
occurrence, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the
data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
other members of the class, asserts claims for breach of implied
contract, negligence, bailment, and unjust enrichment, and seeks
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all
other relief as authorized in equity or by law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a resident of South Carolina
and she and her family used EyeMed for their vision care benefits.
EyeMed is one of the largest and fastest growing vision benefits
companies in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W.B. Markovits, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
zschaengold@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton- On-Hudson, NY 10502
Phone: (917) 983-9321
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33463
Phone: (561) 232-6002
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
BBrown@4-Justice.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
GREEN THUMB: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN THUMB INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a RISE,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-000536 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., January
12, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent at least twenty
generic text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone between
October 6, 2020 and January 10, 2021 in an attempt to promote its
products. The Defendant allegedly used an "automatic telephone
dialing system" (ATDS) as it is demonstrated by the impersonal and
generic nature of the Defendant's text message. The Plaintiff
asserts that he never provided the Defendant with his prior express
written consent to be contacted using an ATDS.
Due to the Defendant's unsolicited text messages have caused the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons harm, such as
invasion of privacy, annoyance, inconvenience, and disruption to
their daily life, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant
from such unlawful conduct, an award of actual, statutory damages,
and/or trebled statutory damages, and other relief that the Court
deems reasonable and just.
Green Thumb Industries, Inc. offers marijuana dispensary and
related products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 628-5793
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of March 15 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against GTT Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or
the "Company") (NYSE: GTT) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of GTT between May 5, 2016 and November
9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for GTT investors under the federal securities
laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
internal controls suffered from issues related to the recording and
reporting of Cost of Telecommunications Services; (2) the Company's
previously reported Cost of Telecommunications was inaccurate or
accounted for unsupported adjustments; (3) inadequate internal
controls would result in delays in the Company's 10-Q quarterly
reports; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of GTT during
the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the March 15,
2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
HAMILTON, ON: Among Named Defendants in COVID-19 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Hamilton is named in a new prospective
lawsuit on behalf of some victims who've died with COVID-19.
Diamond and Diamond Lawyers say they've filed a class action suit
related to what they call "avoidable negligence."
The $500-million suit includes long-term care providers Chartwell,
Extendicare and Sienna, as well as the province and several
municipalities, including Toronto, Essex, Ottawa and Hamilton.
"The municipalities are named because there are individual homes
the municipality operates," Darryl Singer, who is the head of
Diamond and Diamond's class actions group, said in an interview.
More than 11 long-term care homes are named, including Anson Place
Care Centre in Hagersville and Royal Rose Place in Welland.
None of the claims have been tested in court, and CBC News is
pursuing comment from the long-term care homes in Niagara and
Haldimand.
Danielle Kennedy, executive director at Anson Place Care Centre
said she has "no knowledge of this class action lawsuit, or what
has been brought forward."
Hamilton mayor Fred Eisenberger offered a similar response on Jan.
13 and said he was waiting for advice from legal counsel.
"Clearly, we will defend," he said.
Singer said no statements of defence have been filed and the
statement of claim hasn't been certified. But all parties have
appointed counsel and are case conferencing to streamline the
process, he said.
A "very experienced class action judge" is managing the case, he
said.
In a media release, the firm said the class action "is brought
forth on behalf of all persons who have lived, or are currently
living, at one of the named residences, and also names multiple
homes owned by parent company Chartwell. The size of the plaintiff
class is growing hourly."
The plaintiffs allege that the facilities lacked both proper
sanitation protocols and adequate testing, the release says. It
also alleges that measures to keep residents safe were not properly
disseminated to residents and their families. [GN]
HOMELEGANCE LA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alaniz Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ALANIZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOMELEGANCE LA, INC.; HOMERICA, INC.;
YU-HUNG CHEN; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV01644 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 14, 2020) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Mr. Alaniz was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Homelegance La, Inc. manufactures and distributes furniture. The
Company offers dining, bedroom, lighting, and occasional
collections, as well as sofas and chairs, entertainment and home
office, clearance, and mirrors and plaques. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Garrett Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHARA GARRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOOTERS OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-00119 (S.D. Tex., January 14, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated workers at required minimum wage rate, allowing
managers or supervisors to keep a portion of the Plaintiff's and
Class members' tips, and failing to provide appropriate overtime
wage.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server and bartender
from July 2018 to July 2020.
Hooters of America, LLC is a restaurant company based in Atlanta,
Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002-1063
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
curt@mooreandassociates.net
HOST INTERNATIONAL: Schroeder Wage & Hour Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KARLA SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., DIANA
FLORES, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV37525, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00428 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages due at the time of
termination of employment, failure to comply with itemized employee
wage statement provisions, failure to provide meal periods, failure
to provide rest periods, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
failure to reimburse, failure to provide employment records upon
request, and unfair competition.
Host International, Inc. is a company that provides catering
services to travelers based in Bethesda, Maryland. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
Vartan Madoyan, Esq.
Jennifer F. Delarosa, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
jdelarosa@bakerlaw.com
INTEGRA CONNECT: Smith Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integra Connect, LLC.
The case is styled as Brandi L. Smith, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Integra Connect, LLC, Case No.
8:21-cv-00133 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Integra Connect -- https://www.integraconnect.com/ -- unifies a
suite of solutions to optimize value-based patient care at
individual, practice, & population levels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
JEANRICH MANAGEMENT: Tenecela Sues Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Wuilliam Ramiro Naulaguari Tenecela, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. JEANRICH MANAGEMENT INC. (D/B/A
MARRAFLOR), MARRAFLO MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING INC. (D/B/A
MARRAFLOR), BALTO REY J NIETO, ENTERPRISES INC., and EMERCH
VASSNBOLAK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00232-ERK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 15,
2021), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked, asserts the
complaint. The Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately
for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, it adds. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, says the
complaint.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Real estate management
office located in Long Island City, New York. The Plaintiff was
employed as a Handyman and porter at the real estate management
office.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
KIMBRELL'S OF NORTH: Miller TCPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHEDRICK MILLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KIMBRELL'S OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Case No. CACE-20-020424, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
January 14, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-60076-PCH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and 47 Code of Federal
Regulations.
Kimbrell's of North Carolina, Inc. is a furniture store located in
Sanford, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eve A. Cann, Esq.
Spencer D. Leach, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
100 S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1620
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Telephone: (954) 768-1600
Facsimile: (954) 337-7636
E-mail: ecann@bakerdonelson.com
sleach@bakerdonelson.com
KONICA MINOLTA: Cezus Discrimination Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES CEZUS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONICA MINOLTA, INC. and KONICA
MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., Case No. BER-L-007858-20,
was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00792 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged age discrimination in
violation of New Jersey law.
Konica Minolta, Inc. is an optical products company, with its
headquarters located in Tokyo, Japan.
Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. is a provider of
management technologies and information technology (IT) services,
with its headquarters located in Ramsey, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristin D. Sostowski, Esq.
Richard S. Zackin, Esq.
Joseph E. Santanasto, Esq.
GIBBONS P.C.
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102-5310
Telephone: (973) 596-4500
Facsimile: (973) 596-0545
LEGATOS HOLDINGS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Legatos Holdings Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Legatos Holdings Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-00415 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Legatos Holdings Inc. -- https://untilgone.com/ -- is located in
Duvall, Washington and is part of the Internet & Mail-Order Retail
Industry.[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
LOEW'S HOTELS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loew's Hotels, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Freeman Ray Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loew's Hotels, Inc., a
New York corporation; Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a Delaware
corporation; Loews Corporation, a Delaware corporation; DOES 1 to
10, inclusive; Case No. 3:21-cv-00095-CAB-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 18,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Loews Hotels -- https://www.loewshotels.com/ -- is a luxury hotel
brand comprised of 24 distinctive, pet-friendly properties across
the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Court Consolidates New York Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the U.S District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
consolidation of the two class action lawsuits filed in New York as
In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.
7:20-cv-08538.
On October 13, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Olivier Tremblay, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel Solomita, and
Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-0838.
The allegations in the complaint claim that the defendants
allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as allegedly failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, which caused the Company's securities to
trade at artificially inflated prices. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of Loop's securities
between September 24, 2018 and October 12, 2020.
On October 28, 2020, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a second proposed class action lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Michelle Bazzini, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Similarly Situated v. Loop Industries, Inc., Daniel
Solomita, and Nelson Gentiletti, Case No. 7:20-cv-09031-UA.
The allegations in this complaint are similar in nature to those
made in the Tremblay Class Action.
On January 4, 2021, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York rendered a stipulation and order
granting the consolidation of the two class action lawsuits filed
in New York as In re Loop Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 7:20-cv-08538.
Sakari Johansson and John Jay Cappa have been appointed as Co-Lead
Plaintiffs and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP have
been appointed as Co-Lead Counsel for the class.
Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastics and polyester fibers into base
building blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET
plastic for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and
soda bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications.
The Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne, Canada.
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Proposed Securities Class Suit in Quebec Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loop Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a proposed securities class action suit in the
Superior Court of Quebec (District of Terrebonne, Province of
Quebec, Canada).
On October 13, 2020, the Company, Loop Canada Inc. and certain of
their officers and directors were named as defendants in a proposed
securities class action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec in
file no. 700-06-000012-205. The Application for authorization of a
class action and for authorization to bring an action pursuant to
section 225.4 of the Quebec Securities Act was filed by an
individual shareholder on behalf of himself and a class of buyers
who purchased our securities during the "Class Period."
Plaintiff alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants
allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and allegedly
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company's
technology, business model, operations and prospects, thus causing
the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated and thereby
causing plaintiff to suffer damages. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
damages stemming from losses he claims to have suffered as a result
of the foregoing.
On December 13, 2020, the Application was amended in order to add
allegations regarding specific misrepresentations.
Loop Industries, Inc. focuses on depolymerizing waste polyethylene
terephthalate plastics and polyester fibers into base building
blocks. It re-polymerized monomers into virgin-quality PET plastic
for use in food-grade plastic packaging, such as water and soda
bottles, as well as polyester fibers for textile applications. The
Company was founded in 2014 and is based in Terrebonne, Canada.
LOOPS BEAUTY: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loops Beauty, LLC.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Loops
Beauty, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00254 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Loops Beauty, LLC -- https://www.loopsbeauty.com/ -- is located in
New York and is part of the Cosmetics, Beauty Supply & Perfume
Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
LOWE'S HOME: Johnson Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. FCS055726, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00036 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid sick pay, inaccurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair or unlawful business practices.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a retailer of home improvement,
building materials, and home appliances, headquartered in
Wilkesboro, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
Katie M. Magallanes, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3800
Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com
kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
MAJOR ENERGY: Defrauds Electric Consumers, Glikin Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA GLIKIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAJOR ENERGY ELECTRIC SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00356 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach
of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair and
deceptive acts and practices, fraud by concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's fraudulent and bad faith
conduct while supplying electricity to residential consumers across
the United States. The average variable rates that the Defendant
charged to the Plaintiff and the Class were higher than the average
rate among its energy service company competitors in Maryland and
do not reflect changes in market conditions for the energy it
supplies to its retail customers. The Defendant breached its
agreement with the Plaintiff and the Class by exploiting the lack
of transparency and regulatory oversight over its actual pricing
practices to artificially inflate its rates so high that its
variable rate methodology is rendered meaningless. Consumers expect
to pay Major Energy competitive prices for their residential energy
and they did not expect Major Energy to profiteer off of consumers
in excess of commercially reasonable profits.
Major Energy Electric Services, LLC is an independent energy
service company, with its principal place of business located at
100 Dutch Hill Road, Suite 230, Orangeburg, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
Susan J. Russell, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
18 Half Mile Road
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 319-9945
Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
jbm@wittelslaw.com
sjr@wittelslaw.com
- and –
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Chantal Khalil, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
1 North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
ckhalil@fbfglaw.com
MASTERCARD INC: Leigh Day Attorney Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shazia Yamin, Esq., of Leigh Day, reported that in December 2020
the UK's Supreme Court gave the go ahead for a class action against
Mastercard in a claim that may involve almost every adult in the UK
and be worth an estimated £14 billion. It would represent the
largest damages action ever in Britain and has the potential to
change the legal landscape for consumers seeking collective
redress.
The allegations against Mastercard date back to 2007 when the
European Commission found that the company was breaching
competition laws by charging excessive fees for the use of its
services in cross-border transactions. The certification of the
case had initially been blocked by Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT) but this has now been overturned by the Supreme Court. The
case has been sent back to the CAT to be reconsidered.
This landmark case is the largest class action brought under the
collective action regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015
for anti-competitive behaviour.
The regime introduced by the Consumer Rights Act came into force in
October 2015 and enables consumers and businesses to bring a class
action for the infringement of EU or UK competition law on an
opt-out basis. This allows a claim to proceed on behalf of all
those who fall within a class of unnamed or even unidentified
claimants unless they positively take steps to opt-out.
Prior to the introduction of this regime, the only avenues of
collective redress available to claimants were group litigation
orders (GLOs) and representative actions. GLOs can be made in
claims which give rise to common issues of law and fact being
brought by multiple claimants. They proceed on an opt-in basis and
require claimants to take positive steps to join the claim,
following which they must be entered on to the group register.
Representative actions effectively proceed on an opt-out basis,
with representative claimants being able to bring a claim on behalf
of others have the "same interest".
It is not necessary for the other claimants to be identified and
they are not parties to the proceedings. However, the court's
permission is required to enable enforcement of a judgment or court
order against anyone who is not a party to the action.
Given the above legislative landscape, some decry the ruling as
signalling a shift towards a class action culture associated with
the US, however consumer groups have welcomed the decision as
representing an important win for consumers.
Consumers in the UK have historically had to fight harder to
enforce their rights than consumers in the US, and on many
occasions UK consumers find that class action proceedings started
in the US arising from a parallel set of facts are settled long
before any remedy is provided by the UK legal system.
This decision represents an important step in not only levelling
the playing field between consumers in different jurisdictions, but
also between consumers and big businesses as a whole.
Criticisms of the decision largely flow from concerns that the
lower threshold for certification of a class will encourage claims
without merit being filed.
However, courts can and should be trusted to weed out frivolous
claims, and any lack of trust in the ability of the courts to
perform this function should not be used as a mechanism to limit
the ability of consumers to seek redress.
Shazia Yamin is an associate solicitor in the product safety and
consumer law team at Leigh Day. The team specialises in large scale
product liability litigation and are joint lead solicitors in the
Volkswagen NOx emissions claim. They are also bringing a group
claim on behalf of Mercedes-Benz owners, following similar
allegations of emissions cheating. [GN]
MEDIFAST INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medifast, Inc. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Medifast, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00261 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Medifast -- https://www.medifast1.com/ -- is a clinically proven
safe and healthy weight-loss program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MGM NATIONAL: Day Suit Alleges Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------
LAURA A. DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MGM NATIONAL HARBOR, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 8:21-cv-00124-GJH (D. Md., Jan. 14, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly inform its tipped employees of the
required tip credit provisions prior to paying them a sub-minimum
direct cash wage.
Ms. Day was employed by the Defendant as table games dealer.
MGM National Harbor, LLC owns and operates a casino resort. The
Company offers dining, retail, entertainment, and spa facilities in
resort. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil R. Lebowitz,
LEBOWITZ LAW FIRM
8180 Lark Brown Road, Suite 201
Elkridge, MD 21075
Telephone: (410) 730-9010
E-mail: neil@lebowitzlegal.com
-and-
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
-and-
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on December 30, 2020, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted a
motion to dismiss a putative class action against a
biopharmaceutical company (the "Company") and certain of its
officers for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Malquin v. Nektar
Therapeutics, No. 18-cv-06607 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2020). Plaintiffs
alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements and
omissions about the efficacy of its flagship cancer drug in
development. The Court dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice, confirming that securities claims cannot be based on
allegations that a company failed to use the best or preferred
statistical methods for evaluating the effectiveness of a new drug
and that short seller reports will not constitute corrective
disclosures sufficient to allege loss causation unless the reports
can be characterized plausibly as revealing new information to the
market.
Plaintiffs' claims were based primarily on the Company's
announcement of the results of early stage clinical trials for its
flagship cancer drug at an investor conference that was coupled
with a chart showing that cancer-fighting cells increased by an
average of 30-fold in ten patients dosed with the drug every three
weeks ("30-Fold Increase Chart"). Subsequently, an anonymous short
seller report (the "Short Seller Report") claimed that those
results were misleading and based on distorted data because they
were based on a study that (a) included one patient who experienced
a 300-fold increase in cancer-fighting cells without experiencing
any clinical benefit, whereas the other patients experienced such
small increases that they could not be considered statistically
significant, and (b) indicated that the outlier patient, along with
one other patient, in fact received dosages every two weeks rather
than three. Plaintiffs' complaint also contained allegations based
on confidential witnesses who claimed they were instructed to
include the outlier patient data in the 30-Fold Increase Chart.
The Court previously dismissed plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint to include additional
allegations that the outlier patient's results were unique, that
many individuals in the Company had expressed concerns to
management about including the outlier patient in the results, and
expert opinions that inclusion of the outlier patient results in
the 30-Fold Increase Chart violated industry and scientific
standards that caution against presenting data when it is "outlier
driven." The Court held that these amended allegations were still
insufficient to state a claim.
The Court first held that the amended allegations boiled down to a
disagreement about the statistical methodology used by the Company.
Under the Ninth Circuit's decision in In re Rigel Pharms., Inc.
Sec. Litig., however, "merely alleging that defendants should have
used different statistical methodology in their drug trials is not
sufficient to allege falsity." The Court rejected plaintiffs'
argument that their claim was different because it was based on
allegations that the Company presented data in a way that would
"mislead anyone versed in industry and scientific standards."
According to the Court, plaintiffs' claim was based on contentions
regarding "unspecified standards that purportedly are 'customarily
followed in such trials' and that 'individuals familiar with
pharmaceutical research typically assume are followed.'" The Court
held this was not different than the claims in Rigel because
plaintiffs did not "allege that Defendants misrepresented their own
statistical methodology, analysis, and conclusions, but instead
criticize only the [Company's] statistical methodology." With
respect to scienter, the Court held that the confidential witness
allegations about disagreements over the use of outlier data lacked
specificity and that such disagreement in any event was
insufficient to establish scienter.
Finally, the Court also held that the Short Seller Report was not a
corrective disclosure. Applying the Ninth Circuit's recent decision
in In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation dealing with
anonymous blog posts, covered here, the Court noted that "[a]
disclosure based on publicly available information can, in certain
circumstances, constitute a corrective disclosure." However, the
question was whether the Court could "plausibly infer that the
alleged corrective disclosure provided new information to the
market that was not yet reflected in the company's stock price."
Here, the Court held that although it was plausible that the Report
provided new information to the market (giving credence to
plaintiffs' allegation that the Short Seller Report "was the first
market participant . . . to grasp the misleading nature" of the
announced results), "it [was] not plausible that the market
reasonably perceived the [Short Seller Report] as revealing the
falsity of the challenged statements" because it (i) "was published
by an 'anonymous short-seller who had a financial interest in
driving [Company] stock price down incentive to convince others to
sell,'" and (ii) "disclaimed any 'representation, express or
implied, as to the accuracy, timeliness, or completeness'" of the
information. According to the Court, "a reasonable investor
reading" an anonymous short seller report "disclaiming the accuracy
or completeness of its analysis 'would likely have taken [its]
contents with a healthy grain of salt.'" [GN]
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Werner Sues Over Misleading Nutrition Drink Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Werner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., Case No.
7:21-cv-00408 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2021), seeks damages and an
injunction to stop the Defendant's false and misleading marketing
practices with regards to its high protein nutrition drinks under
the Carnation Breakfast Essentials brand identified with the flavor
"Classic French Vanilla."
The relevant front label representations include "Classic French
Vanilla," "Natural Flavor With Other Natural Flavors" and "No
Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Sweeteners." The Defendant misleads
consumers because despite the representation that the flavoring is
only from "natural flavor with other natural flavor" and that it
does not contain artificial flavors, the Product contains
artificial flavor.
Though the Product is labeled as "Natural Flavor With Other Natural
Flavor" and "No Artificial Flavors," these statements are false,
misleading and deceptive, asserts the Plaintiff. Though the
ingredient list only identifies "Natural Flavor," consumers are not
told this contains the artificial flavor, vanillin. The Product
contains other representations which are misleading, including "No
Artificial Sweeteners" on the front label when the Product contains
stevia leaf extract, a non-natural, artificial sweetener. The
Defendant's marketing is designed to -- and does -- deceive,
mislead, and defraud the Plaintiff and consumers. The Defendant
misrepresented the Product through affirmative statements and
omissions. The Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher
prices than it would have in absence of this misconduct, resulting
in additional profits at the expense of consumers.
The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased, used and/or
consumed was materially less than its value as represented by the
Defendant. Had the Plaintiff and the proposed class members known
the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have
paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading labeling,
the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$2.99 per 8 OZ when purchased individually, excluding tax, compared
to other similar products represented in a non-misleading way and
higher than the price of the Product if it was to be represented in
a non-misleading way, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product within her district and/or
State for personal consumption.
Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells high protein nutrition drinks under the
Carnation Breakfast Essentials brand identified with the flavor
"Classic French Vanilla".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NEW MILLENNIUM: Farrell Sues Over Mislabeled Water Purifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
TARA FARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW MILLENNIUM CONCEPTS, LTD, Defendant,
Case 2:21-at-00031 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant falsely and misleadingly advertises the Berkey water
purification systems, which use filters called Berkey Black
Purification Elements, as water "purifiers" that last for 3,000
gallons of water per filter.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Berkey "purifiers"
fails to "purify" water and fail to eliminate or dramatically
reduce contaminants to the extent advertised, let alone for 3,000
gallons. Allegedly, the filters fail to reduce hazardous
contaminants within the first 1 gallon to 100 gallons at abysmal
rates, far below any fine print or obscure minimal standards.
Consumers throughout California and the United States purchase
these water purification systems for their purported efficacy only
to be swindled out of millions of dollars annually, all while
putting themselves and their families in grave danger, the suit
says.
New Millennium Concepts, Ltd. (NMCL) is the manufacturer of the
Berkey water filter - a line of gravity-fed water filtration and
purification products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
NEW YORK DINER: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Rodea Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE EDUARDO RODEA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK DINER, INC., and PAULA RIVADENEIRA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00217 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay
the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees proper
minimum wage and overtime compensation, failing to pay them
spread-of-hours compensation, and failing to provide them with wage
notices and proper paystubs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a kitchen employee at
their restaurant, the Diner, located at 49-09 Northern Blvd., Long
Island City, New York from December 1, 2019 to September 21, 2020.
New York Diner, Inc. is a restaurant company located at 49-09
Northern Blvd., Long Island City, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (718) 971-9474
E-mail: Jonathan@ShalomLawNY.com
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss in Securities Suit Discussed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
January 5, 2021, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a putative securities
class action against a data analytics company (the "Company") for
alleged violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Item 303 of Regulation
S-K ("Item 303"). In re Nielsen Holdings PLC Securities Litigation,
No. 1:18-cv-07143 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged the
Company made misstatements about the financial performance of some
of its business segments and the impact of the enactment of the
General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") in the European Union
on the Company's measurement and analytics services. The Court
dismissed some of plaintiffs' claims, pared down others based on
the Company's knowledge at the time of certain alleged
misstatements, and granted plaintiffs' request for leave to amend.
The Company relies on data obtained from third parties such as
Facebook and Twitter for many of its products and services. The
Company's business consists of two segments: (i) a "Buy" segment
focused on consumer purchasing measurement and analytics related to
consumer packaged goods; and (ii) a "Watch" segment, focused on
media audience measurement and analytics. The "Buy" segment is
further divided into "developed" and "emerging" markets
subdivisions. Plaintiffs alleged four general categories of
misstatements and omissions: (1) the Company's failure to disclose
in 2016 that its clients' discretionary spending was trending
downward within its Buy segment's developed markets division; (2)
statements made in 2016 and 2017 concerning the value of goodwill
of the Company's Buy segment; (3) statements made in 2017 and 2018
about the anticipated growth of the emerging markets division of
the Buy segment; and (4) statements made in 2018 that allegedly
downplayed the impact of the GDPR -- a data privacy regulation
governing the use of personal data -- on the Company's business.
First, the Court dismissed claims relating to statements the
Company made in early 2016 about its developed market business,
finding actionable only those statements made by the Company in a
July 2016 filing. The Court held that plaintiffs sufficiently
alleged that the Company knew that their clients' discretionary
spending was trending downward by July 2016 yet did not timely
disclose this to the public. With respect to claims that the
Company's revenue forecasts concerning the developed markets
business were misleading, the Court dismissed these claims entirely
because plaintiffs failed to allege any "specific, contemporaneous
reports or statements showing [the Company] did not believe their
projections when they were made."
Second, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims concerning statements regarding the value of the
Buy segment's goodwill. The Court held that the Company's "rosy
valuation of Buy Segment goodwill was based on baseless cash flow
growth rates that they failed to disclose in their 2017 and 2018
Form 10-Ks." In doing so, the Court relied heavily on plaintiffs'
allegation that, in valuing Buy segment's goodwill, the Company had
assumed 8.2% cash flow growth rates of 8.2% and 19.7%, when revenue
for the business segment had been projected to range between a 0.5%
increase and a 0.5% decrease. The Court also emphasized that
plaintiffs' allegations regarding the overstated goodwill valuation
were reinforced by subsequent events. Specifically, the Court noted
that after certain of the company's executives resigned in 2019,
the Company "reduc[ed] the reporting unit's goodwill by a
staggering 54%."
Finally, with respect to the alleged GDPR-related misstatements,
the Court again found that some of plaintiffs' alleged
misstatements were actionable, whereas others were not.
Specifically, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
claims based on statements made prior to the enactment of the
regulation on May 25, 2018. Lacking any allegations that the
Company knew that it would not have access to certain customer data
following the implementation of the GDPR, the Court found
plaintiffs had alleged "nothing more than fraud by hindsight."
However, the Court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
that, on at least two occasions after the GDPR was enacted, the
Company made misleading statements about how the GDPR would impact
the Company's media audience measurement Watch segment. The Court
thus sustained plaintiffs' claims concerning statements about the
impact of the GDPR on the Company's business made after the
regulation was in effect, and dismissed all claims based on
GDPR-related statements made prior to the regulation's
implementation.
Although the Court expressed scepticism that plaintiffs could cure
the identified defects through amendment of their complaint, the
Court nonetheless granted leave to amend in "[o]ut of an abundance
of caution." [GN]
PARKING REIT: Term Sheet Entered in Maryland Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on January 14, 2021, that
on November 20, 2020, the Company entered into a term sheet
regarding an agreement in principle for resolution of pending
putative class action litigation in which the Company is a
defendant.
The Term Sheet, which is subject to certain contingencies, and
provides among other things that: (a) a formal Stipulation of
Settlement shall be negotiated and executed and then submitted to
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland for review and
approval, with notice to a class of stockholders; and (b) the
parties will cooperatively take such steps as may be necessary to
have the decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
resolve all of the pending putative class action litigation.
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust for U.S. federal income
tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December 31,
2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Luna Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARK LUNA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PENSKE LOGISTICS LLC and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00288817, 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
January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00081-TLN-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including unpaid overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek or in excess of 8
hours in one day, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to timely pay all wages owed upon
separation of employment, and failure to provide required meal and
rest periods.
Penske Logistics LLC is a logistics services and solutions provider
based in Reading, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, 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: evan.moses@ogletree.com
- and –
Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Preston Commons West
8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75225
Telephone: (214) 987-3800
Facsimile: (214) 987-3927
E-mail: paul.maslo@ogletree.com
PENUMBRA INC: Williams Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Charles Williams, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. PENUMBRA, INC., ADAM ELSESSER, and GITA
BARRY, Case No. 3:21-cv-00420 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2021), is
brought for violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of
all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Penumbra common stock from August 3, 2020 through December 15,
2020, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and alleging that Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price
in violation the Exchange Act.
Penumbra was the first company to market aspiration catheters, a
specialized catheter designed to remove blood clots from arteries
and veins in stroke patients, in a surgical procedure known as a
thrombectomy. Until recently, one of the Company's flagship
products was the "Jet 7 Xtra Flex," an aspiration catheter designed
to be inserted into an affected artery, navigated to a blood clot,
and used to suck the clot out of the patient's body. The Jet 7 Xtra
Flex was introduced to the U.S. market in July 2019 and quickly
became a "growth driver" for the Company, a key source of new
revenues. In mid-2020, however, concerns about the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex's safety began to emerge. On June 22, 2020, for example,
Penumbra's distributor in Japan sent a letter to hospitals warning
of issues with the new Jet 7 Xtra Flex, stating that "part of the
catheter inflated into a balloon and damaged a patient's blood
vessel" when the product was used, causing injury and deaths.
Shortly thereafter, the Company suspended sales of the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex in Japan.
The Class Period begins on August 3, 2020, when the Company
announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2020. On
a conference call with analysts conducted the same day, Defendant
Adam Elsesser, the Company's CEO was asked about the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex MAX, a delivery device that utilizes the Jet 7 Xtra Flex
catheter, and responded that Penumbra was "doing some of the work
we do with every new product that is cleared to evaluate and make
sure it's all good" and boasted that the device "is exactly what we
hoped it would be." The Defendants continued to make false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, as well as the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, relates the complaint.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it
unsafe for its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately
address the risk of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and
deaths, which had in fact already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as
a result, Penumbra's public statements as set forth above were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 23, 2020, an article was published in the Journal of
NeuroInterventional Surgery presenting the cases of three patients
who suffered as a result of Jet 7 Xtra Flex device malfunctions,
including two fatalities. As this report became more widely
circulated, it caused Penumbra stock to fall from $254.71 on
November 23, 2020 to $224.12 on November 25, 2020, a decline of
about 12%. On December 8, 2020, before the market opened, QCM
issued another report reiterating its prior assertions and
disclosing additional facts about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety
issues. In response, Penumbra's stock price fell by 9%, from
$224.02 per share on December 7, 2020 to $204.07 per share on
December 8, 2020, a decline of $19.95 per share.
Finally, on December 15, 2020, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent"
recall of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter "may become
susceptible to distal tip damage during use" which could lead to
injury or death. On a conference call held the same day, the
Company's CEO acknowledged that the product's design "made the
catheter susceptible to failure in certain scenarios" and that the
Company's "steps to ensure the safe use of the product were not
able to fully address the risks." In response, Penumbra's stock
price fell by 7%, from $188.82 per share on December 15, 2020 to
$174.98 per share on December 16, 2020, a decline of $13.84 per
share. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions
and the decline in the Company's share price, the Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant damages, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Penumbra common stock during the Class
Period.
Penumbra is a global healthcare company that develops, manufactures
and sells innovative medical devices for patients suffering from
stroke and other vascular and neurovascular diseases.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 997-0860
Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: 484-324-6800
Facsimile: 484-631-1305
Email: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Werzberger Sues Over Deceptive Debt Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL WERZBERGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC and JOHN
DOES l-25, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00336 (S.D.N.Y., January 14,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a misleading and
deceptive collection letter to the Plaintiff and the Class by
offering them to pay the full balance or a discounted amount of
their alleged debt without mentioning any benefit to paying the
full balance. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class are left
confused and misled which option to choose; on the one hand the
discounted amount saves them money but on the other hand, the full
payment option must have some benefit or else it would not even be
a consideration, the suit says.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is a debt collector based in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
R & R CAR: Henderson Sues Over Transmission of Spam Calls and Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RENESHA HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R & R CAR COMPANY LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-10107-SJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., January 14, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sends mass automated
marketing calls and text messages to the cellular phone numbers of
individuals, including the Plaintiff, using an automatic telephone
dialing system and without first obtaining the required express
written consent. The Defendant's unsolicited text messages caused
the Plaintiff harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the
suit says.
R & R Car Company LLC is a used car dealership business in Mount
Clemens, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
- and –
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
RELIABLE ONE: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
---------------------------------------------------
Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RELIABLE ONE RESOURCES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-00431 (C.D. Cal.,
Jan. 15, 2021), is brought to recover damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading Plaintiff' privacy.
On February 15, 2018, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff on his
cellular telephone in an effort to sell or solicit its services.
The Defendant called an average of 5 times. The Defendant's calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes. The
Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never
provided any personal information, including his cellular telephone
numbers, to the Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In addition,
the Plaintiff told the Defendant at least once to stop contacting
them and Plaintiff has been registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry
for at least 30 days prior to the Defendant contacting him.
Accordingly, the Defendant never received the Plaintiff's "prior
express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his
cellular telephone pursuant to the TCPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff a natural person residing in Winnetka, California.
The Defendant is a marketing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
RING LLC: To Bring End-to-End Video Encryption After Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Wiggers, writing for Venture Beat, reports that in September,
Amazon-owned Ring announced that it would bring end-to-end video
encryption to its lineup of home security devices. While the
company already encrypted videos in storage and during
transmission, end-to-end encryption secures videos on-device,
preventing third parties without special keys from decrypting and
viewing the recordings. The feature launched on Jan. 13 in
technical preview for compatible Ring products.
The rollout of end-to-end encryption comes after dozens of
plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Ring, alleging they
had been subjected to death threats, racial slurs, and blackmail
after their Ring cameras were hacked. In 2019, a data leak exposed
the personal information of over 3,000 Ring users, including log-in
emails, passwords, time zones, and the names people give to
specific Ring cameras. Following the breach, Ring began requiring
two-step verification for user sign-ins and launched a compromised
password check feature that cross-references login credentials
against a list of known compromised passwords.
In a whitepaper, Ring explains that end-to-end encryption, which is
available as a setting within the Ring app, is designed so users
can view videos on enrolled smartphones only. Videos are encrypted
with keys that are themselves encrypted with an algorithm that
creates a public and private key. The public key encrypts, but the
private key is required to decrypt. Only users have access to the
private key, which is stored on their smartphone and decrypts the
symmetric key, and by extension, encrypted videos.
When a user opts into end-to-end encryption, the Ring app presents
a 10-word auto-generated passphrase used to secure the
cryptographic keys. (Ring says these words are randomly selected
from a dictionary of 7,776.) The passphrase, which can be used to
enroll additional smartphones, is generated on-device. But the
public portion of the instance key pair and the account data key
pair are copied to the Ring cloud after being signed by the
account-signing key, as are the locally encrypted private portions
of the account-signing key pair and the account data key pair.
Ring notes that end-to-end encryption disables certain features,
including AI-dependent features that decrypt videos for processing
work like motion verification and people-only mode. However, Live
View, which decrypts video locally on-device, will continue to run
while end-to-end encryption is enabled. And users can share videos
through Ring's controversial Neighbors Public Safety Service, which
connects residents with local law enforcement by downloading an
end-to-end encrypted video to their smartphone, which saves it in
decrypted form.
Users can switch off end-to-end encryption at any time, but any
videos encrypted with end-to-end encryption can't be decrypted; the
keys to access those videos are removed permanently in the process.
Conversely, turning on end-to-end encryption doesn't encrypt any
videos created before enrollment because the service only encrypts
videos created post-enrollment.
Ring recently made headlines for a deal it reportedly struck with
over 400 police departments nationwide that would allow authorities
to request that owners volunteer footage from Ring cameras within a
specific time and location. Ring, which has said it would not hand
over footage if confronted with a subpoena but would comply when
given a search warrant, has law enforcement partnerships in more
than 1,300 cities.
Advocacy groups like Fight for the Future and the Electronic
Frontier Foundation have accused Ring of using its cameras and
Neighbors app (which delivers safety alerts) to build a private
surveillance network via police partnerships. The Electronic
Frontier Foundation in particular has singled Ring out for
marketing strategies that foster fear and promote a sale-spurring
"vicious cycle," and for "[facilitating] reporting of so-called
'suspicious' behavior that really amounts to racial profiling."
[GN]
RWJ BARNABAS: Cardoso Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARIANA CARDOSO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RWJ BARNABAS HEALTH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-000668 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir., January
12, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent her numerous
prerecorded messages on or about November 3, 2020, November 10-11,
2020, November 18, 2020, November 24, 2020, December 1, 2020, and
December 8, 2020 for the purpose of promoting its services. The
Plaintiff never provided her cellular telephone number nor her
"prior express consent" to the Defendant to be contacted on her
cellular telephone using artificial or prerecorded voice.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals suffered actual harm,
including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action seeking
injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct,
actual and statutory damages, and other relief that the Court deems
reasonable and just.
RWJ Barnabas Health, Inc. provides health care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com
SALLY BEAUTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Coles Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN COLES, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALLY BEAUTY HOLDINGS, INC.; SALLY BEAUTY
SUPPLY LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV01648 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 14, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods,
provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Coles was employed by the Defendants as distributor sales
consultant.
Sally Holdings LLC operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides beauty products for hair, skin,
and nails. Sally Holdings serves customers globally. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
-and-
Justin Lo, Esq.
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, P.C.
22939 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (424) 355-8535
E-mail: iustin@worklawvers.com
Bevonca@caworklawver.com
-and-
Belal Hamideh, Esq.
BELAL HAMIDEH LAW, P.C.
111 W. Ocean Blvd. Ste. 424
Long Beach CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 276-2140
Facsimile: (562) 309-8100
E-mail: bh@belalhamidehlaw.com
SEA LIMITED: Securities Suit Settlement to be Heard on April 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Sea Limited Securities Settlement:
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
MICHAEL PLUTTE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SEA LIMITED, FORREST XIAODONG LI, GANG YE, TONY TIANYU HOU, COLLEEN
A. DE VRIES, YUXIN REN, NICHOLAS A. NASH, DAVID HENG CHEN SENG,
KHOON HUA KUOK, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INTERNATIONAL PLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) L.L.C., CLSA
LIMITED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., COWEN AND COMPANY,
LLC, NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.,
STIFEL NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, PT MADIRI SEKURITAS, TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO.
SECURITIES, INC., BDO CAPITAL & INVESTMENT CORPORATION, CATHAY
SECURITIES CORPORATION OFFSHORE SECURITIES UNIT, DBS BANK LTD.,
VIET CAPITAL SECURITIES JSC and COGENCY GLOBAL INC.,
Defendants.
Index No. 655436/2018
The Honorable Jennifer G. Schecter, J.S.C.
PART 54
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO:
ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SEA LIMITED ("SEA
LTD." OR THE "COMPANY") AMERICAN DEPOSITORY SHARES ("ADS") PURSUANT
OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN
CONNECTION WITH SEA LTD.'S OCTOBER 2017 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING
("IPO" OR "OCTOBER 2017 IPO")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on April 1,
2021, at 11:30 a.m., before the Honorable Jennifer G. Schecter,
J.S.C., Supreme Court of New York, County of New York: Commercial
Division, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine
whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the
above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")1 for $10,750,000 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3)
to award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of
the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed
below), and, if so, in what amount; (4) to award Plaintiff for
representing the Settlement Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.2
This Action is a securities class action brought on behalf of those
persons who purchased or acquired Sea Ltd. ADS pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus for Sea
Ltd.'s IPO, against Sea Ltd. and others (collectively,
"Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and
omitting material facts from the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the IPO. Plaintiff alleges that these
purportedly false and misleading statements inflated the price of
the Company's stock, resulting in damage to Settlement Class
Members when the truth was revealed. Defendants deny all of
Plaintiff's allegations.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SEA LTD. ADS PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO
THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH
SEA LTD.'S OCTOBER 2017 IPO, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than March 29,
2021) or electronically (no later than March 29, 2021). Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by March 29, 2021, will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action. If
you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not request
exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Action, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.SeaLimitedSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
writing to:
Sea Limited Securities Litigation Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43309
Providence, RI 02940-3309
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800-449-4900
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MARCH
11, 2021, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL
MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION
FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND/OR THE AWARD TO PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT
CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD
COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MARCH 18, 2021, IN THE MANNER
AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: December 8, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION
THE HONORABLE JENNIFER G. SCHECTER, J.S.C.
SHIFTPIXY INC: Splond Wage-and-Hour Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
ShiftPixy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended November 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself against a class action suit initiated by
Corey Splond.
On April 8, 2019, claimant, Corey Splond, filed a class action
lawsuit, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, in the Eighth Judicial District Court for the State of
Nevada, Clark County, naming the Company and its client as
defendants, and alleging violations of certain wage and hour laws.
This lawsuit is in the initial stages, and the Company denies any
liability.
ShiftPixy said, "Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevails, the
potential damages recoverable will depend substantially upon
whether the Court determines in the future that this lawsuit may
appropriately be maintained as a class action. Further, in the
event that the Court ultimately enters a judgment in favor of
plaintiff, the Company believes that it would be contractually
entitled to be indemnified by its client against at least a portion
of any damage award."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ShiftPixy, Inc. provides employment services for businesses; and
workers in shift or other part-time/temporary positions in the
United States. The company also operates as a payroll processor,
human resources consultant, and administrator of workers'
compensation coverages and claims. It primarily serves restaurant,
hospitality, and maintenance service industries.
SLIP SILK: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Slip Silk Pillowcase
LLC. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Slip
Silk Pillowcase LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00255 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 18,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Slip silk -- https://www.slip.com/ -- offers pillowcases that are
natural, hypoallergenic, dust mite-resistant, and allows skin to
breathe, unlike synthetic satin (polyester) which sweats,
essentially negating the benefits.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SOLARWINDS CORP: Faces Azpurua Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL AZPURUA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLARWINDS CORPORATION; KEVIN B. THOMPSON;
and J. BARTON KALSU, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00047 (W.D. Tex.,
Jan. 14, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded SolarWinds
securities from February 24, 2020 through December 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' 2019
10-K, 1Q20 10-Q, 2Q20 10-Q, and 3Q20 10-Q registration statements
were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring
products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the
server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server
had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3)
consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the
Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be
vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer
significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times.
On December 13, 2020, Reuters reported that hackers alleged to be
working for the Russian government had monitored email traffic at
the U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments and that the alleged
hackers are believed to have gained access to the agencies' email
traffic by deceptively interfering with updates released by
SolarWinds, which services various government vendors in the
executive branch, the military, and the intelligence services.
On December 14, 2020, SolarWinds filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
disclosing that it had been the subject of hack on its Orion
monitoring products. On this news, the Company's shares fell $3.93
per share, or 17%, to close at $19.62per share on December 14,
2020, damaging investors, the suit says.
On December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating that,
last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the company
that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the
password 'solarwinds123.'" The article also disclosed that,
according to Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based
cybersecurity company Huntress, "days after SolarWinds realized
their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were
still available for download." On this news, the Company's shares
allegedly fell $1.56 per share or 8% to close at $18.06 per share
on December 15, 2020, damaging investors.
SolarWinds Corporation designs and develops information technology
management software. The Company offers solutions such as network
performance monitoring, configuration, virtualization, database
management, hosted logs, security, and configuration. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Willie Briscoe, Esq.
THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
12700 Park Central Drive, Suite 520
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (972) 521-6868
Facsimile: (346) 214-7463
E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com
-and-
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
SONA NANOTECH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Sona Nanotech Inc. ("Sona" or the "Company") (OTCQB: SNANF)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, and
docketed under 21-cv-00169, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Sona securities between July 2, 2020 and
November 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the
Exchange Act by publishing false and misleading statements to
artificially inflate the prices of the Company's securities.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Sona securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 16, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Sona purports to be engaged in researching and developing gold
nanorod products for diagnostic tests and medical treatment
applications.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) it was unreasonable for Sona to represent that
it could receive results from field studies of its COVID-19 antigen
test within a month; (2) Sona's positive statements about its
COVID-19 antigen test were unfounded as the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would deprioritize emergency use
authorization approval of Sona's antigen test finding it did not
meet "the public health need" criterion; (3) it was unreasonable
for Sona to believe that data gathered over such a short period of
time would be sufficient for approval of its antigen test by either
the FDA or Health Canada; (4) the Company would have to withdraw
its submission for Interim Order ("IO") authorization from Health
Canada for the marketing for its COVID-19 antigen test as it lacked
sufficient clinical data to support approval; and (5) as a result,
defendants' statements about their business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On August 6, 2020, Sona published a press release providing an
update on the status of its COVID-19 antigen test and stating there
would be a delay in results.
On this news, shares of Sona fell $3.29 per share, or over 35%, to
close at $5.91 per share on August 6, 2020.
On October 29, 2020, Sona issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had deprioritized its EUA review of the Company's COVID-19
antigen test.
On this news, shares of Sona fell $2.77 per share, or over 48%, to
close at $3.00 per share on October 29, 2020, damaging investors.
On November 25, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it withdrew its application of IO authorization from Health
Canada for its COVID-19 antigen test.
On this news, shares of Sona fell $1.56 per share, or over 67%, to
close at $0.74 per share on November 25, 2020, damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
STANDARD LIFE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Simmons et al. Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAKIA SIMMONS, MICHELLE SMITHERMAN, and MARLYE GOROSTIZA,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. THE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case
No. 7:21-cv-00243 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2021) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as Claims
Examination Employees to process disability benefits claims, allege
that although they routinely worked over 40 hour per week, the
Defendant did not pay them and other similarly situated employees
their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40
in a workweek.
On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Claims
Examination Employees, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime
compensation, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief that the Court deems appropriate, the
suit says.
The Standard Life Insurance Company of New York provides life
insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 833-8855
Fax: (202) 452-1090
E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
hdl@mselaborlaw.com
- and –
Travis M. Hedgepeth, Esq.
THE HEDGEPETH LAW FIRM, PC
3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
Tel: (281) 572-0727
Fax: (281) 572-0728
E-mail: travis@hedgepethlaw.com
- and –
Jack Siegel, Esq.
Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 600
Dallas, TX 75206
Tel: (214) 790-4454
E-mail: stacy@siegellawgoup.biz
jack@siegellawgroup.biz
STORED VALUE: Court Approves Debit Card Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a federal
court approved the $550,000 settlement of a class action brought by
former inmates of certain Ohio correctional facilities who claimed
they were issued unsolicited, fee-bearing debit cards to hold the
money they'd surrendered.
Stored Value Cards Inc. and Republic Bank & Trust Co. respectively
managed and sponsored a program under which some Ohio law
enforcement facilities would put cash held by incoming inmates into
a trust account. The inmates would then be given prepaid debit
cards with the balance of their funds when they were released.
These cards charged fees for monthly maintenance, ATM usage, and
balance inquiries. Cardholders could request a paper check for
their account balance at no charge, but only if the request was
made within five days after the card was issued.
Amber Humphrey brought a class action against the companies,
alleging the program violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and
Ohio law.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio approved
a settlement agreement on Jan. 12.
Settlement administrator American Legal Claims Services will
receive about $224,000 in costs, and class counsel Laribee &
Hertrick LLP and O'Toole McLaughlin Dooley & Pecora LPA will
receive a similar amount in attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses.
Humphrey sought a $15,000 incentive award as class representative,
but the court determined that a $10,000 award was more reasonable.
The remainder will be split among approximately 1,770 class members
who have filed claims, or about $52 per member, "which likely
exceeds the fees they incurred from Defendants' prepaid debit card
program," the court said.
The settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, Judge James S.
Gwin said.
Fox Rothschild LLP and Thompson Hine LLP represent Stored Value.
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Thompson Hine represent Republic.
The case is Humphrey v. Stored Value Cards, N.D. Ohio, No.
1:18-cv-01050, 1/12/21. [GN]
TAISHO INC: Victoriano Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taisho, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Delfino Victoriano, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Taisho, Inc. doing business
as: Oh Taisho; Lex 18 Inc. doing business as: Yakitori Taisho;
Yumiko Umiya; Taicho Doe; Michael Doe; Case No. 1:21-cv-00425
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Oh! Taisho -- https://ohtaisho.com/ -- is a Japanese restaurant
located in East Village, New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
TENAGLIA & HUNT: Faces Friedman Suit Over False Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TENAGLIA & HUNT, P.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00254 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant seeking to
recover for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt that
was in default and was assigned to the Defendant for collection. In
its effort to collect the alleged debt, the Defendant contacted the
Plaintiff by calls and by letters, including the letter dated June
24, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's collection
letter misled him into believing that there was a meaningful
attorney involvement in the collection of because of the letterhead
of the law firm Tenaglia & Hunt. The letter also failed to provide
any disclaimer, the suit says.
Tenaglia & Hunt, P.A. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 203-7600
Fax: (516) 706-5055
E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com
TRICIDA INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TCDA)
securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Tricida investors have until March
8, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Tricida investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Tricida's drug candidate, veverimer, is a polymer designed as a
potential treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD"). The Company has completed a Phase 3,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of veverimer in patients
with CKD and metabolic acidosis.
On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program for approval of
veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis in patients with
CKD.
On July 15, 2020, Tricida announced that it had received a notice
from the FDA "identif[ying] deficiencies that preclude discussion
of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this
time." The Company stated that "[t]he notification does not specify
the deficiencies identified by the FDA."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.56, or 40.31%, to
close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on October 29, 2020, following its End-of-Review Type A
meeting with the FDA, Tricida announced that it "now believes the
FDA will also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD
progression from a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD
trial for approval under the Accelerated Approval Program and that
the FDA is unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for
determination of efficacy." Tricida also disclosed that it was
"significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and
will discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service
providers to potentially provide additional financial
flexibility."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.90, or 47.16%, to
close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
The complaint filed 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) Tricida's NDA
for veverimer was materially deficient; (2) accordingly, it was
foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for
veverimer; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Tricida securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Jan. 13 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: TCDA) securities between September 4, 2019 and October 28,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Tricida, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Tricida, Inc. you may,
no later than March 8, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Tricida, Inc.
Tricida's drug candidate, veverimer, is a polymer designed as a
potential treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD"). The Company has completed a Phase 3,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of veverimer in patients
with CKD and metabolic acidosis.
On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program for approval of
veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis in patients with
CKD.
On July 15, 2020, Tricida announced that it had received a notice
from the FDA "identif[ying] deficiencies that preclude discussion
of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this
time." The Company stated that "[t]he notification does not specify
the deficiencies identified by the FDA."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.56, or 40.31%, to
close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.
Then, on October 29, 2020, following its End-of-Review Type A
meeting with the FDA, Tricida announced that it "now believes the
FDA will also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD
progression from a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD
trial for approval under the Accelerated Approval Program and that
the FDA is unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for
determination of efficacy." Tricida also disclosed that it was
"significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and
will discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service
providers to potentially provide additional financial
flexibility."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.90, or 47.16%, to
close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
UMAR SERVICES: Staley Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Angela Staley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UMAR SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00042 (M.D.N.C.,
Jan. 15, 2021), is brought for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
compensation on behalf of others similarly situated Direct Support
Professional-Live In (DSP-LIs) as an opt-in collective action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act the North Carolina Wage
and Hour Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
knowingly suffering and/or permitting the Plaintiff and similarly
situated DSP-LI employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without properly compensating them at an overtime premium
rate for these overtime hours. The Plaintiff also contends that the
Defendant violated the NCWHA by failing to pay all earned regular
wages to Staley and similarly situated employees DSP-LIs on their
regularly scheduled paydays, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Greensboro, North Carolina and
worked for the Defendant as a DSP-LI.
UMAR is a nonprofit organization that provides housing services to
adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Gibbons, Esq.
Craig L. Leis, Esq.
GIBBONS LEIS, PLLC
14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Ste. 325
Charlotte, NC 28277
Phone: 704-612-0038
Email: phil@gibbonsleis.com
craig@gibbonsleis.com
VEE-ZEE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vee-Zee, LLC. The
case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Vee-Zee, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00416
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
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
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Roper Suit Moved From E.D. Pa. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ANGELA ROPER and RENEE JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS,
Case No. 5:18-cv-05270, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00187 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiffs and Class members for their pre-shift and post-shift
work and failing to pay meal break work.
Verizon Communications, Inc. is an American multinational
telecommunications company, with its corporate headquarters in New
York, New York.
Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, is an
American telecommunications company based in New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and –
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 North Riverside, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
rstephan@stephanzouras.com
VILLAREAL DRYWALL: Mejia FLSA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDIN OMAR MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VILLAREAL DRYWALL, INC. and EDWARD
VILLAREAL, Case No. 2020-73591, was removed from the 80th Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on January 15, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-00136 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Villareal Drywall, Inc. is a dry wall contractor located in San
Antonio, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Linda C. Schoonmaker, Esq.
John P. Phillips, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-2300
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
E-mail: lschoonmaker@seyfarth.com
jphillips@seyfarth.com
XILINX INC: Stein Sues Over Incomplete and Misleading Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. XILINX, INC., DENNIS SEGERS, VICTOR PENG, RAMAN
CHITKARA, SAAR GILLAI, RONALD S. JANKOV, MARY LOUISE KRAKAUER,
THOMAS H. LEE, JON A. OLSON and ELIZABETH VANDERSLICE, Case No.
3:21-cv-00393 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2021), is brought on behalf of
other public holders of the common stock of Xilinx, Inc. against
the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in
connection with the proposed merger (the "Proposed Transaction")
between Xilinx and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
On October 26, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive 1.7234 shares of
AMD common stock for each share of Xilinx stock they own (the
"Merger Consideration"). Upon completion of the merger, Xilinx
shareholders will own approximately 26% and AMD shareholders will
own approximately 74% of the combined company.
According to the complaint, on December 4, 2020, in order to
convince Xilinx shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation the Exchange Act. The materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary S-4 violates both Regulation
G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of the
Exchange Act. On January 14, 2020, the Board authorized the filing
of a Form S-4/A that did not correct the materially incomplete and
misleading nature of the S-4.
While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the S-4, the Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and
misleading, asserts the complaint. In particular, the S-4 contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i)
the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the
Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Xilinx
shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii)
the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Xilinx's
financial advisors, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and BofA Securities,
Inc. in support of their opinion that the Merger Consideration is
fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied.
It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to
allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, the
Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of
the Exchange Act, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a holder of Xilinx common stock.
Xilinx is a technology company that designs and develops
programmable devices and associated technologies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: (424) 256-2884
Fax: (424) 256-2885
Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 983-9330
Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
jwilson@faruqilaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. 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 ***