/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210303.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 3, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 39
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
AEROGROW INT'L: Facing Nicoya Capital Putative Class Action
AEROGROW INT'L: Facing Overbrook Capital Putative Class Suit
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Facing Lockheed Martin Merger Related Suits
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: The Schall Law Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AIRBNB INC: Breach of Contract Suit Mulled Amid Class Action
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Mears Stayed Pending JPML's Transfer Ruling
AMERICAN EAGLE: Stevens BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. HomeAdvisor
ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing en Banc Pending
APACHE CORPORATION ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 23 Deadline
APACHE CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 26 Deadline
APACHE CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of April 26 Deadline
ARK RESTAURANTS: Settlement Reached in Former Tipped Workers' Suit
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 29 Deadline
BAUDAX BIO: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit vs. Recro Pending
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food
BELDEN INC: Facing Edke and Mackey Putative Class Suits
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin Sept. 13
CENTRAL HEALTH: Pair of St. John's Lawyers File Class-Action
CERNER CORPORATION: Bid to Initially Approve Class Settlement Filed
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Ordered to Answer Maharaj Suit by March 9
CLOVER HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of April 6 Deadline
COFFEE HOLDING: Agrees to indemnify Customer Against Cohen Suit
COFFEE HOLDING: Facing Brodsky and Diamond Putative Class Suit
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Suit Pending
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement in Dog Food Suits Initially OK'd
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Approves Settlement with Zwick Partners
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Final Hearing on Kirk Settlement Set for April 12
COMPASS GROUP: Germain FLSA and ADA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: US Oil Fund, LP Securities Suit Underway
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Class Settlement in Feliciano Suit Has Final OK
COUNTERPATH CORP: Facing Alianza Merger Related Suits
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Related Suit Pending
CVS HEALTH: Miami FFPO Retirement Trust Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
DECK CAPITAL: Notice of Dismissal of Lawsuit Upon Attorney's Fees
EBIX INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Glancy Prongay Continues Investigation of Claims
EBIX INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action in New York
EBIX INC: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
EBIX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
EBIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Securities Class Action Underway
EPIC GAMES: Class Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
ERIE INSURANCE: Saturno Seeks Insurance Claims for COVID-19 Losses
EXACT SCIENCES: Genomic Continues to Defend Flannery Class Action
EXETER FINANCE: Goldowsky Suit Moved From W.D.N.Y. to N.D. Texas
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Approves Settlement in BIPA Class Action Suit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Suit Against Unit Gets Initial OK
FIRST CLASS: Target Martinez Trial Date Continued to January 2022
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Emmons Putative Class Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Consolidates Owens & Frand Suits
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Smith, Buldas and Hudock Suits Consolidated
FLEETPRIDE INC: Woods BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
FOSTER POULTRY: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Leining Suit
FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Bid for Class Status in Duarte Suit Pending
FUBOTV INC: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in New York
GARRETT MOTION: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces White Product Liability Suit in Colorado
GEO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit in Florida Pending
GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program on Standby
GEORGIA POWER: Bid for Class Cert. in Franchise Fee Suit Pending
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Stadia Advertisement
HERC HOLDINGS: Denial of Relief from Judgment in Ramirez Affirmed
HOWMET AEROSPACE: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
HYATT HOTELS: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in Illinois
IMMUNOVANT INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 20 Deadline
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Tchatchou Class Suit in Maryland Underway
IROBOT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
JUUL LABS: Charleston County Files E-Cigarette Class Lawsuit
JUUL LABS: Richland One Considers Joining E-Cigarette Lawsuit
KEYBANK N.A.: Final Approval of Parties' Settlement Sought
KNM HOLDINGS: McDaniel Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Putative Class Suit in California Dismissed
MATERION CORP: Facing Lucyk Purported Class Action
MCDONALD'S CORP: Franchise Owners Allege Anti-Black Racism Protest
MDL 2804: Prescription Opioids Product Row Moved to N.D. Ohio
MDL 2873: AFFF Product Liability Suits Transferred to D.S.C.
MDL 2875: Hypertension Meds Transfer Request Denied
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: C300 Fuel Smell Leads to Class Action Lawsuit
MINDLANCE INC: Lopez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Turnage Bid to File Revised Complaint Tossed
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Schall Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Announces Class Settlement
NETGEAR INC: Final Approval Hearing on Settlement Set for March 11
NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario Underway
NEXTGEN ACQUISITION: Juan Monteverde Probes on Possible Merger
NTT DATA: 2nd Cir. Rules on Denial of Rehearing in Mandala Suit
NURTURE INC: Faces Stewart Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
PBF ENERGY: Parties' Motions in Goldstein Suit Under Submission
PENUMBRA INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Create Subclass in Antitrust Suit
PHENIXFIN CORP: Facing Kahn Purported Class Action
PHENIXFIN CORP: Revised Agreement Reached in Solomon Suit
POLARIS INC: 8th Cir. to Hear Appeal in Johannessohn Suit
POLARIS INC: Appeal in Sales & Product Liability Suit Pending
POLARIS INC: Deposition & Document Discovery in Guzman Suit Ongoing
RENO, NV: Estrada and 25 Cases Over Swan Lake Flood Consolidated
REWALK ROBOTICS: IPO Related Securities Class Suits Dismissed
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces U.S. Regulator Inquiries Over Trading App
SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Tosses Signor Bid for Class Certification
SCHLEGEL VILLAGES: Faces $110M COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
SCRANTON, PA: Aims to Trash Lawsuit That Challenges Garbage Fees
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit in Florida
SOUTHERN CO: Monroe ERS Securities Suit Concluded
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Settlement with Public School Teachers Tossed
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Suit Pending
TELEXFREE INC: Fidelity Bank Will Pay $22.5MM to Resolve Lawsuit
TRINET GROUP: 401(k) Plan-Related Class Suit Underway
TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
VAIL RESORTS: Replies to Alleged Violations of Federal Labor Laws
VICEROY HOTEL: Jordan FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
VIRGIN AMERICA: Summary Judgment Order in Bernstein Partly Upheld
WALGREEN CO: Slafter Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to S.D. Illinois
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. Comerica Bank
ZILLOW GROUP: April 14 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
[*] Clyde & Co Attorney Discusses Victoria Bushfire Settlement
[*] JND Legal Appoints Shandarese Garr as VP of Operations
*********
3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
HARRISON EUGENE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00562-RMG
(D.S.C., February 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications, the
suit says.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- and –
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
AEROGROW INT'L: Facing Nicoya Capital Putative Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
AeroGrow International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company
is facing a putative class action suit initiated by Nicoya Capital,
LLC.
On November 12, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with SMG Growing Media, Inc., an Ohio corporation
("Parent"), AGI Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Nevada corporation and
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and, solely for the
purposes stated in Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement, The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation, relating to the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Parent.
On January 12, 2021, an alleged stockholder of the Company, Nicoya
Capital filed a putative class action complaint in the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County Nevada, against each of the
members of the Board, James Hagedorn, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Scotts Miracle-Gro, Peter Supron, Chief of Staff to the
President of Scotts Miracle-Gro, the Company, Merger Sub, Parent
and Scotts Miracle-Gro, purportedly in relation to the Company's
entry into the Merger Agreement.
The complaint asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against
the defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
Scotts Miracle-Gro, James Hagedorn and Parent (as controlling
stockholders) breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care
to the Company's unaffiliated minority stockholders in connection
with the Merger due to, among other things, an alleged lack of
fairness to the Company's unaffiliated stockholders, (ii) James
Hagedorn, Peter Supron, the Company, Merger Sub and the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger due
by, among other things, allegedly aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty via selling the Company for what was alleged to be
an unfair price, and (iii) the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger by, among other things,
allegedly failing to protect the Company's unaffiliated minority
stockholders.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages and
unspecified attorneys', accountant's and experts' fees.
AeroGrow International, Inc., develops, markets, and distributes
indoor aeroponic garden systems. The Boulder, Colorado-based
Company manufactures, distributes and markets seven models of its
AeroGarden systems in multiple colors, as well as more than 40
varieties of seed pod kits and a line of accessory products.
AEROGROW INT'L: Facing Overbrook Capital Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
AeroGrow International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company
faces a putative class action suit initiated by Overbrook Capital,
LLC.
On November 12, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with SMG Growing Media, Inc., an Ohio corporation
("Parent"), AGI Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Nevada corporation and
direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and, solely for the
purposes stated in Section 6.4 of the Merger Agreement, The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation, relating to the proposed
acquisition of the Company by Parent.
On January 11, 2021, an alleged stockholder of the Company,
Overbrook Capital, LLC, filed a putative class action complaint in
the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County Nevada, against
the Company, each of the members of the Board, Parent and Scotts
Miracle-Gro, purportedly in relation to the Company's entry into
the Merger Agreement.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i)
the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger due to, among other things, the fairness and adequacy of
Merger Consideration for the Company's unaffiliated minority
stockholders and a lack of certain measures in the Merger Agreement
that the complaint alleges would have better protected the
interests of Company's unaffiliated minority stockholders, (ii)
Parent and Scotts Miracle-Gro (as controlling stockholders)
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's unaffiliated
minority stockholders in connection with the Merger due to, among
other things, an alleged lack of fairness to the Company's
unaffiliated stockholders, both in terms of price and process, and
(iii) Parent, Scotts Miracle-Gro and the Company breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by, among other
things, allegedly aiding and abetting the foregoing alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors.
The complaint seeks, among other things, in the event the Merger is
consummated, an order rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages, and unspecified attorneys' and
experts' fees.
AeroGrow International, Inc., develops, markets, and distributes
indoor aeroponic garden systems. The Boulder, Colorado-based
Company manufactures, distributes and markets seven models of its
AeroGarden systems in multiple colors, as well as more than 40
varieties of seed pod kits and a line of accessory products.
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Facing Lockheed Martin Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
18, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company is facing multiple suits related to its merger with
Lockheed Martin and Mizar Sub, Inc.
On December 20, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Lockheed Martin and Mizar Sub, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, pursuant to which,
subject to the terms and conditions thereof, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company with the Company being the surviving
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin.
On January 29, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Richard Myers v. Aerojet
Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21- cv-00844, styled
as a putative class action, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company
and the members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Also on January 29, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Alexa Hiramitsu v.
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00123,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware against the Company and the members of the Company's Board
of Directors.
On February 1, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Richard Feinhals v. Aerojet
Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00892, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and the members of the Company's Board
of Directors.
On February 2, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Shiva Stein v. Aerojet
Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00962, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On February 4, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Mateo Clark v. Aerojet
Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00994, was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and the members of the Company's Board
of Directors.
Also on February 4, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Guy Coffman v. Aerojet
Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01917, was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of
Directors.
On February 15, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Richard Wilhelm vs.
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01348,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, against the Company and members of the Company's Board
of Directors.
Also, on February 15, 2021, a lawsuit entitled Hiten Patel vs.
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01349,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, against the Company and members of the Company's Board
of Directors.
The Actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) (and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by, among other things, omitting certain allegedly material
information with respect to the Merger in the preliminary proxy
statement filed by the Company on January 25, 2021.
The Myers Action and the Feinhals Action also allege that the
members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and the Myers
Action further alleges that the Company aided and abetted the Board
of Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs
in the Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief, money
damages and the costs of the Actions, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees.
The Company and the members of its Board of Directors disagree with
and intend to vigorously defend against the Actions.
If the Actions are not resolved on a timely basis, the Actions
could delay consummation of the Merger and result in additional
costs to the Company, including costs associated with the
indemnification of directors. Additional plaintiffs may file
lawsuits against the Company and/or its directors and officers in
connection with the Merger.
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., formerly GenCorp, Inc., is an
American technology-based manufacturer based in El Segundo,
California. Established in 1915, it was formerly known as the
General Tire and Rubber Company, becoming GenCorp in 1984, and
adopting its current name in April 2015. The company is based in El
Segundo, California.
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased AgEagle Aerial
Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS) securities between September 3, 2019 and
February 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until April 27, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Click https://www.bespc.com/cases/UAVS to participate in the
action.
On October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle, and in fact never did. The
Wichita Business Journal published a story with the headline:
"Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who it's
not."
On this news, shares of AgEagle, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.
The complaint, filed on February 26, 2021, alleges that defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) AgEagle did not have a
partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any relationship with
Amazon; (2) rather than correct the public's understanding about a
partnership with Amazon, defendants were actively contributing to
the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about AgEagle's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
If you purchased AgEagle securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. ("AgEagle" or the
"Company") (NYSE: UAVS) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of AgEagle between September 3, 2019 and
February 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities
laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AgEagle did not have
a partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any relationship
with Amazon; (ii) rather than correct the public's understanding
about a partnership with Amazon, Defendants were actively
contributing to the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership with
Amazon; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about
AgEagle's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of AgEagle
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
27, 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]
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. ("AgEagle" or
the "Company") (NYSE: UAVS) on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's securities between September 3, 2019 and
February 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
AgEagle investors who have suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 – 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal
rights and options. Additional information about participating in
the action may also be found at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/ageagle-aerial-systems-inc/.
As detailed in the complaint, on February 18, 2021, Bonitas
Research published a report revealing, among other things, that
AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by Alpha Capital
Anstalt ('Alpha Capital'), AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret
Chilcott and other UAVS insiders to defraud US investors." Further
according to the Report, "in April 2020 rumor of a partnership
between Amazon . . . & AgEagle was started by a promotional video
uploaded to AgEagle's founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott's
daughter's personal website and youtube account" but that "we have
found no evidence of any 'major e-commerce customer.'" Following
this news, shares of AgEagle's stock fell $5.13 per share, or over
36% in value, to close on February 18, 2021 at $2.96 per share.
IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased AgEagle's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than April 27, 2021, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.
AgEagle investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this
opportunity to participate in the action.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
AGEAGLE AERIAL: The Schall Law Reminds of April 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against AgEagle
Aerial Systems, Inc. ("AgEagle" or "the Company") (NYSE American:
UAVS) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September
3, 2019 and February 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 27, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3qbv7IQ to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AgEagle did not have a partnership with
Amazon, and had never had a business relationship with the
e-commerce giant of any sort. The Company actively contributed to
the rumor that it held a partnership with Amazon. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about AgEagle, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
AIRBNB INC: Breach of Contract Suit Mulled Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Griffith, writing for The New York Times, reports that over
six years, Lorraine Luongo went from renting out a spare room in
her house in Myrtle Beach, S.C., to owning and managing 10
properties that she listed on Airbnb.
Last year, when the pandemic hit and Airbnb allowed customers to
cancel bookings with full refunds, she lost $25,000 in reservations
overnight. The payments that Airbnb then offered hosts as a
concession were "peanuts," she said.
Ms. Luongo realized her business was too reliant on Airbnb, she
said. So she created listings on competing sites like VRBO and
Golightly, a site for female travelers, and plans to build a
website to deal with guests directly. In November, she filed an
arbitration claim against Airbnb for breach of contract, seeking to
recover the money she lost.
"They're supposed to be valuing the hosts, but everything is more
in favor of the guests," Ms. Luongo, 45, said.
Ms. Luongo is just one of Airbnb's rental operators who have become
increasingly disillusioned with the company. While there had always
been tensions between Airbnb and its four million hosts around the
world, a rift has widened in the pandemic after the company changed
its cancellation policy and hosts realized what little power they
had.
For some rental operators, the relationship is broken beyond
repair. Hundreds with more than 10,000 listings are pursuing legal
action against Airbnb, according to Bryant Greening, a lawyer at
LegalRideshare, the Chicago firm that is helping Ms. Luongo with
her claim. Others are trying to bypass Airbnb by booking guests
directly. Last year, direct bookings made up 25 percent of
reservations among rental managers surveyed by Hostfully, a travel
software company, up from 19 percent in 2019.
"A lot of the damage is permanent," said Jasper Ribbers, who runs
Get Paid for Your Pad, a company in Barcelona, Spain, that advises
short-term rental operators. "The trust is kind of gone."
The fracturing is happening at a crucial moment for Airbnb. The
company, which went public in December and immediately topped more
than $100 billion in value, faces high expectations as its stock
price has soared further. Airbnb plans to report its first earnings
as a public company on Feb. 25.
That puts the San Francisco company under pressure to show a
thriving business -- taking a cut of the fees when people book
properties that hosts list on its site -- even as new surges of the
coronavirus dampen travel.
In an interview on the day of Airbnb's initial public offering,
Brian Chesky, the chief executive, acknowledged tensions with hosts
but said the relationship had improved over the last year.
"We have a lot of work to do, and frankly, they're still hurting,"
he said.
Catherine Powell, Airbnb's head of hosting, said hosts' views of
their relationship with the company improved 17 percent between
January 2020 and last month. "Our relationship with hosts is
incredibly important," she said. "Our hosts are what powers
Airbnb."
When $77,000 disappears
Airbnb hosts trace many of their issues with the company to March
14, three days after the World Health Organization declared the
pandemic. That was when Airbnb enacted an "extenuating
circumstances policy."
The change angered many rental operators, who had previously chosen
their own cancellation policies, including a nonrefundable option.
The new policy allowed guests to cancel with a full refund,
overriding some hosts' preferences. Many saw their livelihoods
disappear overnight.
Darik Eaton, who managed 50 properties in Seattle, laid off 10
employees after the change and has reconfigured his company to run
"leaner," including dropping some of the properties he managed, he
said.
"I watched $77,000 disappear from my bank account in one day," Mr.
Eaton said.
In late March, Mr. Chesky apologized to hosts for how the decision
had been communicated. "We have heard from you, and we know we
could have been better partners," he said in a video. The company
set up a $250 million fund to cover some of the cancellation costs
and a $10 million relief fund.
But for some, the money was simply a gesture. Benjamin Vail, 34,
who operates 70 Airbnb listings in Columbus, Ohio, said that while
the properties he managed had lost roughly $70,000 of bookings, he
got a check from the company for $3,211. Other hosts passed around
images of checks with amounts like $2 and $4, he said.
Hosts began sharing other grievances. While Airbnb's terms
guarantee that it will pay for the damage if guests ruin a
property, some hosts said it was difficult to get the company to
pay. They also complained about its customer service, inconsistent
enforcement of pandemic policies, and elaborate Covid-19 cleaning
rules that included shampooing rugs and washing down baseboards
between each guest.
In July, Elizabeth Goldreich, an Airbnb host in Aspen, Colo., lost
$11,500 after a guest canceled a three-week stay at her vacation
home at the last minute. Ms. Goldreich, 55, said the reservation,
made after the pandemic began, should not have qualified for a
refund.
The situation broke her trust in the platform. "I was a true loyal
fan, until I got thrown under the bus," she said.
Dozens of hosts have retained LegalRideshare, which opened a
subsidiary, LegalBnb, to file arbitration claims against Airbnb for
breaching contracts, Mr. Greening said. (Airbnb's terms require
hosts to make legal claims individually through arbitration.)
LegalBnb said Airbnb's extenuating-circumstances policy did not
include pandemics.
"Many of these hosts were absolutely willing to be flexible with
their guests," Mr. Greening said. "Airbnb took that power away from
the host and, therefore, took money out of their pocket."
Another host, Anthony Farmer, filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
against Airbnb in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in November. The suit, which is attempting to override
Airbnb's arbitration terms, accuses the company of breaching its
contract and fiduciary duty and violating consumer protection
laws.
Christopher Nulty, an Airbnb spokesman, said the company's policy
put public health and safety first, which would ultimately help
hosts "by maintaining high guest loyalty and demand for Airbnb
listings." He said Mr. Farmer's suit was without merit.
'Back to our roots'
In May, Airbnb announced that it would go "back to our roots" by
focusing on "everyday people who host their homes."
That position has business advantages. Professional rental
operators with many listings can appear to take away housing and
turn neighborhoods into tourist zones, causing politicians and
neighborhood associations to impose regulations. A family renting
out a spare bedroom often appears less threatening.
In a financial prospectus in November, Airbnb said 90 percent of
its hosts were "individual hosts," defined as those who created
their listings directly on the site instead of using specialized
software to sign up. But according to Transparent, a software
provider for short-term rental operators, just 37 percent of
Airbnb's listings were managed by people with one property as of
September. Roughly half of the listings were managed by hosts with
two to 20 properties, and 14 percent by hosts with 21 or more.
So when Airbnb emphasized the individual hosts, it further annoyed
its professional hosts.
"Their business is built on professional hosts, in a way, but they
don't often say that," Mr. Vail, the operator in Columbus, said.
"They don't want that message to be the headline."
Mr. Nulty said Airbnb's focus on "core hosts" did not come at the
cost of professional hosts. He said professional hosts were
represented on its Host Advisory Board, a group the company created
in October so hosts can meet with Airbnb executives.
#BookDirect
A movement toward "direct bookings" has now gained momentum. There
is a conference series (The Book Direct Show), a hashtag
(#bookdirect) and even a promotional holiday (#BookDirect Guest
Education Day on Feb. 3).
"People are starting to think: 'Do I really want to be completely
dependent on Airbnb? I don't want to experience what happened in
March again,'" Mr. Ribbers said.
Kwesi Steele, chief executive of Tokeet, a provider of software to
help short-term rental operators manage their listings, said many
customers had begun asking for ways to build their own websites,
especially those with loyal guests who realized they didn't need an
intermediary like Airbnb. At one point over the summer, the number
of direct bookings from Tokeet's customers was as high as those
going through Airbnb, Booking.com and VRBO, he said.
So Tokeet accelerated development on a product, Webready, that
allows hosts to build their own websites. It debuted in November.
"It was the fastest-growing product we've built in terms of
adoption," Mr. Steele said, with more than 1,500 hosts signed up.
When Airbnb went public in December, it set aside nine million
shares for hosts to buy at the offering price. Those who took part
more than doubled their money in a day.
But even hosts who participated, like Ms. Goldreich, said they did
not plan to stick only with Airbnb. Ms. Goldreich said she had
signed up with VRBO.
"I used to think they had my back and were a partner," she said. "I
no longer feel that way." [GN]
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Mears Stayed Pending JPML's Transfer Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN MEARS, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALL-CLAD
METALCRAFTERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02662-SI
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted the motion to stay
proceedings pending a final decision on transfer by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
The motion to stay was filed by Defendants All-Clad Metalcrafters,
LLC, and Groupe SEB USA, Inc., on Jan. 22, 2021.
Plaintiff Mears filed the action on April 16, 2020, seeking damages
caused by an alleged defect in Defendant All-Clad Metalcrafters'
D3, D5(R), and LTD Stainless Steel Collections cookware products.
On Dec. 15, 2020, a first amended complaint ("FAC") was filed,
naming Mears and Jean Greeff as the Plaintiffs on behalf of
similarly situated customers who purchased and used Defendant
All-Clad Metalcrafters' cookware products after defendants
designed, constructed, manufactured, advertised, and sold the
cookware products in California and throughout the United States.
The Plaintiffs assert causes of action for: (1) breach of express
warranty, (2) breach of implied warranty and Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) violation of the
California False Advertising Law, (5) violation of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (6) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, (7) negligence for failure to perform adequate
testing of products, (8) negligence for failure to warn of defect,
and (9) strict products liability.
The case is one of four cases filed against the Defendants by the
Plaintiffs' counsel. On Jan. 22, 2021, the Defendants concurrently
filed a motion for transfer and consolidation of the four cases
with the JPML and a motion to stay proceedings in the case with the
Court. A hearing on the Defendants' motion for transfer with the
JPML is scheduled for March 25, 2021. On Feb. 4, 2021, the
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Defendants' motion to stay.
On Feb. 16, 2021, the Defendants filed a reply.
On Feb. 18, 2021, the parties filed a joint statement of discovery
dispute and the Plaintiffs' request for sanctions. In the
statement, the Plaintiffs requested the Court to compel the
Defendants to respond to their first set of discovery requests and
sanction the Defendants for their failure to respond to respond to
the Plaintiffs' discovery requests and file an answer to the FAC.
Judge Illston explains that when determining whether a stay is
warranted pending a potential transfer by the JPML, courts consider
"(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and
inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3)
the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative
litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated. She finds that
the relevant factors weigh in favor of a stay.
First, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are not likely to be
prejudiced by a brief stay of this matter because the Defendants'
motion to transfer with the JPML will likely be resolved by April.
Second, if the case is not stayed, she says the Defendants would
face the hardship of litigating parallel motions on the same
issues, which risks inconsistent rulings of law and fact in four
different jurisdictions. Finally, she finds a stay is in the
interest of judicial economy because if the case is transferred,
the MDL court can uniformly address pretrial issues.
Given that she finds a stay in the case is appropriate, Judge
Illston granted the Defendants' motion to stay, and denied as moot
and without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for discovery and
sanctions. She ordered the parties to provide the Court with a
written update within 10 days of the JPML's decision of transfer.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5xwwpcey from Leagle.com.
AMERICAN EAGLE: Stevens BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAURICE STEVENS and KRYSTYNA HARE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN EAGLE
OUTFITTERS, INC.; AE RETAIL WEST, LLC; and AE CORPORATE SERVICES
CO., Case No. 2021 CH 00170, was removed from the Illinois Circuit
Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on February 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01062 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to obtain
written releases from the Plaintiff and the Class before they
collected, used and stored their biometric identifiers and
information; failing to inform them in writing that their biometric
identifiers and information were being collected and stored;
failing to inform them in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which their biometric identifiers or information
were being collected, stored, and used; and failing to publicly
provide a retention schedule or guideline for permanently
destroying employees' biometric identifiers and information.
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. is an American lifestyle, clothing,
and accessories retailer headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
AE Retail West, LLC is a retailer located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
AE Corporate Services Co. is a retail company based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kwabena Appenteng, Esq.
Orly Henry, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 372-5520
E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com
ohenry@littler.com
- and –
Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 659-2000
E-mail: pmartin@littler.com
ANGI HOMESERVICES: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. HomeAdvisor
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGI Homeservices Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing
in the putative class action suit entitled, In re HomeAdvisor, Inc.
Litigation.
In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.
The complaint, as amended in November 2016, alleges that our
HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices
affecting the service professionals who join its network, including
charging them for substandard customer leads and failing to
disclose certain charges.
The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012,
asserts claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment and violation of the federal RICO statute and the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), and seeks injunctive
relief and damages in an unspecified amount.
In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and
California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) claims. In September
2017, the court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing
those claims. In October 2017, HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying
the material allegations of the remaining claims in the complaint.
In May 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint that would add nine new named plaintiffs,
five new defendants (including ANGI Homeservices), and 55 new
claims, most of them for various alleged violations of the laws of
nine separate states. In June 2018, HomeAdvisor opposed the motion
on grounds including that it was filed more than one year after the
court's deadline to amend pleadings.
In July 2018, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No.
1:18-cv-1802, on behalf of the same nine proposed new plaintiffs in
the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, ANGI
Homeservices and IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and
asserting 45 claims largely duplicative of those asserted in the
proposed second amended complaint in the Airquip case. In November
2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued an order
consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under the caption
In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.
In January 2019, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for leave to
file a consolidated second amended complaint, naming as defendants,
in addition to HomeAdvisor, ANGI Homeservices and IAC, CraftJack,
Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company and thus, an entity
affiliated with HomeAdvisor) and two unrelated entities.
In February 2019, the defendants opposed the motion on various
grounds. In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion. In October and December 2019, the four
defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor filed motions to dismiss
certain claims in the amended complaint. On September 29, 2020, the
court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery in the case is well underway and the issue of class
certification remains to be litigated.
The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.
ANGI Homeservices Inc. operates a digital marketplace for home
services, connecting millions of homeowners with home service
professionals in North America and Europe. The company was formerly
known as Halo TopCo, Inc. and changed its name to ANGI Homeservices
Inc. in May 2017. ANGI Homeservices Inc. was incorporated in 2017
and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado. ANGI Homeservices Inc. is
a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp.
ANTHEM INC: Plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing en Banc Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that palintiffs' petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc filed in the class action suit
entitled, In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, is
pending.
The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or
beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from
December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which we provided
prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a
percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that
prescription drug benefit.
The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately
monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement, (ii)
by placing the company's own pecuniary interest above the best
interests of its insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing
in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for its
NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect to the non-ERISA
members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI PBM Agreement
that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA
members.
Plaintiffs seek to hold the company and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.
In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in October 2018.
In December 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed the trial court's
decision dismissing the ERISA complaint.
Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En
Banc.
Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."
Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
APACHE CORPORATION ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Apache Corporation (APA)
Class Period: 9/7/2016 - 3/13/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 26, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-apache-corporation-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
APACHE CORPORATION: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Apache Corporation ("Apache" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APA) common
stock between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Apache investors have until April 26, 2021 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Apache 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/apache-corporation/.
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 April 23, 2019, pre-market, the Company announced that it had
begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of natural gas production at its
Alpine High oil-and-gas resource play in the Permian Basin.
On this news, Apache's stock price fell $4.03, or nearly 11%, over
the next four trading days, to close at $33.06 per share on April
26, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
On October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of Worldwide
Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the Company.
On this news, Apache's stock price fell $1.16, or 5%, to close at
$22.07 per share on October 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on February 26, 2020, post-market, the Company announced that
it was completely de-valuing Alpine High after taking a $3 billion
write-down on the project. Two weeks later, on March 12, 2020,
Apache announced that it had slashed its quarterly dividend by 90%
(from $0.25 per share to just $0.025 per share) and was
significantly reducing planned capital expenditures for the rest of
2020.
On this news, Apache's stock price fell $0.49, or approximately 6%,
to close at $7.76 per share on March 12, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
Finally, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an article
pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged among its
peers, as the Company carried "the highest debt-to-equity ratio
among large-cap independent [exploration and production
companies]," that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance
sheet" and that its "financial health isn't great."
On this news and other investment research downgrades, Apache's
stock price fell $3.61, or approximately 45%, over two trading
days, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17, 2020, thereby
injuring investors further.
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) Apache
intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and
composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) Apache did
not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or
economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they
existed in the amounts purported; (3) these misleading statements
and omissions artificially inflated the value of Apache's
operations in the Permian Basin; 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Apache common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 26,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, 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 H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
APACHE CORPORATION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Apache
Corporation ("Apache" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APA) common stock
between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Apache investors have until April 26, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Apache 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.
On April 23, 2019, pre-market, the Company announced that it had
begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of natural gas production at its
Alpine High oil-and-gas resource play in the Permian Basin.
On this news, Apache's stock price fell $4.03, or nearly 11%, over
the next four trading days, to close at $33.06 per share on April
26, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
On October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of Worldwide
Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the Company.
On this news, Apache's stock price fell $1.16, or 5%, to close at
$22.07 per share on October 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
Then, on February 26, 2020, post-market, the Company announced that
it was completely de-valuing Alpine High after taking a $3 billion
write-down on the project. Two weeks later, on March 12, 2020,
Apache announced that it had slashed its quarterly dividend by 90%
(from $0.25 per share to just $0.025 per share) and was
significantly reducing planned capital expenditures for the rest of
2020.
On this news, Apache's stock price fell $0.49, or approximately 6%,
to close at $7.76 per share on March 12, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
Finally, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an article
pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged among its
peers, as the Company carried "the highest debt-to-equity ratio
among large-cap independent [exploration and production
companies]," that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance
sheet" and that its "financial health isn't great."
On this news and other investment research downgrades, Apache's
stock price fell $3.61, or approximately 45%, over two trading
days, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17, 2020, thereby
injuring investors further.
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) Apache
intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and
composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) Apache did
not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or
economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they
existed in the amounts purported; (3) these misleading statements
and omissions artificially inflated the value of Apache's
operations in the Permian Basin; 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.
If you purchased Apache common stock, 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]
ARK RESTAURANTS: Settlement Reached in Former Tipped Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ark Restaurants Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that a settlement has been
reached in the putative class action suit initiated by two former
tipped service workers.
On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain
subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the Company.
Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
that the Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws
and related regulations.
The Complaint sought unspecified money damages, together with
interest, liquidated damages and attorney fees.
On December 14, 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement
resolving all issues alleged in the Complaint, which will be
submitted to the New York State Supreme Court for approval, for
approximately the amount which was previously accrued.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19
fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New
York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The
Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch.
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Astrazeneca Plc.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
AZN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=13163&wire=1
Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)
AZN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 21, 2020 -
November 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=13163&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Astrazeneca Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) initial clinical trials for the
Company's COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, had suffered from a critical
manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial
participants receiving half the designed dosage; (b) clinical
trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient
subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the
validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the
clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (c)
certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a
second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the
second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled
to be delivered according to the original trial design; (d)
AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients
over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite
this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the
effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the
drug; (e) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been
hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a
failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory
authorities and the general public; (f) as a result of (a)-(e)
above, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in
accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards
and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the
clinical trials was of limited utility; and (g) as a result of
(a)-(f) above, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial
use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest
potential markets for the drug.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]
BAUDAX BIO: Bid to Nix Securities Class Suit vs. Recro Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baudax Bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed by Recro Pharma, Inc. in the securities class action suit
filed in he U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB), is pending.
On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit, or the
Securities Litigation, was filed against Recro Pharma, Inc. and
certain of Recro's officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.
2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by Recro
concerning the new drug application (NDA) for injectable meloxicam.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and other costs.
On December 10, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but
included new allegations and named additional officers as
defendants. On February 8, 2019, Recro filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff
opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its
response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss.
In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted
supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020,
the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice.
On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
Recro filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to Recro's motion
to dismiss on August 17, 2020. On September 16, 2020, Recro filed a
reply in support of the motion to dismiss.
Baudax Bio said, "In connection with the Separation, we accepted
assignment by Recro of all of Recro's obligations in connection
with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify Recro for
all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. Recro and we
believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to
its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us."
Baudax Bio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes innovative products for acute care settings. The
Company is headquartered in Malvern, Pennsylvania.
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Staten Island mother of a one year-old boy just filed a class
action lawsuit against major baby food manufacturers, represented
by her attorneys Pollock Cohen LLP. The suit alleges that some of
the most popular baby foods – often marketed as "organic" --
contain dangerous levels of heavy metals. In some products, the
level of dangerous heavy metals is two-hundred times the safe
amounts.
Michelle Walls filed the suit on behalf of herself, her son, and
all others similarly situated in the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, on Wednesday, February 17, 2021.
The defendants in the case include some of the best-known and
largest brands in the baby food business: Beech-Nut, Earth's Best
Organic, Gerber, Happy Family Organics, and Plum Organics.
The basis of the lawsuit is a February 4th report by the United
States House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and
Consumer Policy. The report found that these baby food brands
contain elevated and/or dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals,
including arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. The FDA has set
safety standards for the amount of heavy metals that can be found
in water, candy, and juice -- but not in specific baby foods -- and
the defendants' products exceed that safety level enormously.
The Congressional report details multiple instances where the
defendants knew these toxic elements exceed not only government
safety guidelines, but their own internal standards.
This action is the first lawsuit filed against multiple defendants.
It is also the first to allege violations and make claims on behalf
of parents as well as their children. Violations on behalf of
parents focus on their role as consumers: being fraudulently misled
into purchasing products they were told were safe for their
children. The claims on behalf of children focus on potential
health consequences and medical monitoring needs. The complaint
alleges violations of New York's consumer protection statutes, and
includes claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
breach of warranty, negligence, gross negligence, and strict
products liability.
The House report notes that exposing children to toxic heavy metals
can cause a permanent decrease in IQ, an increased risk of future
criminal and antisocial behavior, and "untreatable and frequently
permanent" brain damage. Ms. Wall is now having her son tested. But
unfortunately, a full seven vials of blood are needed to test for
these heavy metals -- a difficult and sometimes painful experience
for any child.
The plaintiffs' attorney, Christopher Leung, a partner at Pollock
Cohen LLP said, "For years, these baby food companies have known
that their products contained high levels of toxic heavy metals.
That's unacceptable, and we intend to hold these companies
accountable."
The case index number is 1:21-cv-00870.
Contact:
Christopher Leung, Esq.
Partner, Pollock Cohen LLP
Chris@PollockCohen.com
917.985.3995 [GN]
BELDEN INC: Facing Edke and Mackey Putative Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing
putative class action suits related to data incident initiated by
Anand Edke and Kia Mackey.
On November 24, 2020, the Company announced a data incident
involving unauthorized access and copying of some current and
former employee data, as well as limited company information
regarding some business partners.
In January 2021, Anand Edke filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Case No. 2021 CH 47.
In February 2021, Kia Mackey filed a separate putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the U.S District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:21-CV-00149.
The plaintiffs have each asked for injunctive relief, unspecified
damages, and unspecified legal fees.
Belden said, "It is premature to estimate the potential exposure to
the Company associated with the litigation. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuits."
Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a portfolio of
cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics. Its
products provide for the transmission of signals for data, sound,
and video applications.
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin Sept. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a joint
liability trial will commence on or around September 13, 2021 in
the class action suit related to the train derailment in
Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montréal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co., derailed in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec. The derailment occurred on a section of railway owned and
operated by the MMA Group and while the MMA Group exclusively
controlled the train.
Following the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada
under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and MMAR filed for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Plans of the arrangement were approved in
both Canada and the U.S., providing for the distribution of
approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.
A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced in
Canada and the U.S. against CP and others:
(1) Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment,
Wildlife and Parks ordered various parties, including CP, to
remediate the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order") and served CP
with a Notice of Claim for $95 million for those costs. CP appealed
the Cleanup Order and contested the Notice of Claim with the
Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. These proceedings are stayed
pending determination of the Attorney General of Québec ("AGQ")
action.
(2) The AGQ sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court claiming $409
million in damages, which was amended and reduced to $315 million.
The AGQ Action alleges that: (i) CP was responsible for the
petroleum crude oil from its point of origin until its delivery to
Irving Oil Ltd.; and (ii) CP is vicariously liable for the acts and
omissions of the MMA Group.
(3) A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of
persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in,
operating a business in, or physically present in Lac-Mégantic at
the time of the derailment was certified against CP on May 8, 2015
(the "Class Action"). Other defendants including MMAC and Mr.
Thomas Harding were added to the Class Action on January 25, 2017.
The Class Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful
death, personal injury, property damage, and economic loss.
(4) Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Québec Superior Court
claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which was amended
and reduced to approximately $15 million (the "Promutuel Action"),
and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP claiming
approximately $3 million in damages (the "Royal Action"). Both
actions contain similar allegations as the AGQ Action. The actions
do not identify the subrogated parties. As such, the extent of any
overlap between the damages claimed in these actions and under the
Plans is unclear. The Royal Action is stayed pending determination
of the consolidated proceedings described below.
On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the
Promutuel Action were consolidated. These consolidated claims are
currently scheduled for a joint liability trial commencing on or
around September 13, 2021, followed by a damages trial, if
necessary.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.
CENTRAL HEALTH: Pair of St. John's Lawyers File Class-Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Two St. John's lawyers have filed a class-action lawsuit against
the Central Regional Health Authority, seeking damages for
consequences suffered by more than 200 patients whose private
information was illegally accessed.
"The plaintiffs in this case suffered distress, humiliation, anger,
upset, mental anguish, shock, fear of identity theft, uncertainty
as to how the private, confidential medical records and personal
health information has been used, and confusion as to why their
private, confidential medical records and personal health
information was accessed," Bob Buckingham and Eli Baker wrote in a
statement of claim filed with the province's Supreme Court earlier
this month.
The breach of privacy has left the 240 patients feeling vulnerable,
the lawyers wrote, especially given the time span of the privacy
breach, the number of times their files were accessed and the fact
that in many cases the access was focused on their newborn babies.
"They are alarmed and terrified at the motivation, purpose and
intent of the defendant's employee's systematic, targeted intrusion
into the private, confidential medical records and personal health
of their newborn children," the statement of claim reads.
Last July, Central Health said someone outside the health authority
had alerted them about two weeks previously that an employee had
shared a patient's private information. An internal investigation
revealed the employee had unlawfully accessed the records of 240
patients online between October 2018 and June 2020.
The health authority said it immediately undertook an investigation
and implemented extra steps to prevent further privacy breaches.
"We take confidentiality and privacy very seriously and sincerely
regret this happened," said Andree Robichaud, president and CEO of
Central Health.
The employee was no longer working for the health authority, she
said.
The lawsuit claims Central Health was negligent in 10 capacities.
Among them: failing to have procedures in place that would have
prevented the privacy breaches, failing to properly train its
employees, failing to conduct adequate reviews to catch illegal
access to files, failing to restrict employees' access to files so
that only immediately required information was available and
failing to take reasonable steps to protect patients' private
information from unauthorized access or disclosure.
The statement of claim was filed under the Class Actions Act on
Feb. 9.
Central Health did not provide comment when contacted by The
Telegram.
Buckingham stated in a news release he hopes to move the case along
through discussions with the health authority's lawyers and
communication with the court for the assignment of a case
management judge. [GN]
CERNER CORPORATION: Bid to Initially Approve Class Settlement Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA JANE FRECK, GLORIA
ROBINSON, JALEEZA OWENS, LYNN MUSERELLI, PAUL CAPELLO, JIM HELTON,
and JOSHUA CLARK individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CERNER CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-BCW
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs submit unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement, preliminary certification of
settlement class, approval of class notice, approval of plan of
allocaton, and scheduling of a fairness hearing.
The Plaintiffs are current or former participants in the Cerner
Corporation Foundations Retirement Plan and filed lawsuits alleging
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by failing to
prudently and loyally manage the Plan.
The Defendants strongly dispute Plaintiffs' allegations and deny
liability for the alleged ERISA violations. However, the Parties
have agreed to a Settlement of $4,050,000 with additional
non-monetary consideration.
The Settlement provides Cerner (or its insurers) will pay
$4,050,000 to be allocated to participants on a pro-rata basis
pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. The Parties also
agreed to prospective relief which includes Cerner issuing a
request for proposal for recordkeeping services for the Plan and
precluding Cerner employees employed within the Company's
Investment Relations function from serving on the Retirement Plan
Committee for a period no less than three years.
Cerner Corporation is an American supplier of health information
technology services, devices, and hardware. As of February 2018,
its products were in use at more than 27,000 facilities around the
world.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 18, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q60KE0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsmile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
Donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600
9225 Indian Creek Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66210-2000
Telephone: (913) 253-2144
Facsimile: (866) 347-1472
E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com
- and -
Boyd A. Byers, Esq.
1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: 316-267-6371; Fax: 316-267-6345
E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com
- and -
Kristie Blunt Welder, Esq.
WELDER BLUNT WELDER
& ASSOCIATES, LLC
4741 Central Street, Suite 514
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (844) 935-3373
E-mail: kwelder@welderfirm.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Ordered to Answer Maharaj Suit by March 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEVANAN MAHARAJ, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of
California, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00064-BAS-LL
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California denied Defendant Charter's
Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Stay Plaintiff Devanan
Maharaj's First Amended Complaint.
Judge Bashant ordered the Defendant to file an answer to the FAC by
March 9, 2021.
Plaintiff Maharaj initiated the action in San Diego Superior Court
on Nov. 5, 2019, which Defendant Charter removed to federal court
on Jan. 8, 2020. On May 5, 2020, the case was transferred to the
Court. After the Court granted leave to amend, the Plaintiff filed
the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC").
The FAC alleges nine causes of action. For the first eight counts,
the Plaintiff seeks to represent the following "Maintenance
Technician Class": "All current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants Charter Communications, Inc. who worked as a Maintenance
Technician in the State of California during any pay period at any
time from Nov. 5, 2015, through the present."
The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a Waiting Time Penalties
Subclass consisting of: "All members of the Maintenance Technician
Class, whose employment with the Defendants ended at any time from
Nov. 5, 2016, through the present."
The FAC states eight causes of action on behalf of Maharaj and the
class: (1) failure to provide meal periods (Cal. Labor Code
Sections 226.7, 512(a), 1198); (2) failure to provide rest periods
(id. Sections 226.7, 1198); (3) failure to pay minimum and regular
wages (id. Sections 1194, 1197, 1198); (4) failure to pay all
overtime wages (id. Sections 510, 1194, 1198); (5) failure to pay
reporting time pay (id. Section 558); (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements (id. Sections 226, 246, 1198);
(7) failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of
employment (id. Sections 201-203); and (8) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").
Derivative of all aforementioned wage violations, the Plaintiff
also seeks remedies for inaccurate wage statements, remedies under
California's UCL, and waiting time penalties on behalf of the
subclass.
In the ninth count, the Plaintiff seeks to assert representative
claims under the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section 2698, et seq. He seeks to
bring a PAGA claim on behalf of himself and other aggrieved
employees for various violations of the Labor Code, including
failing to pay wages upon separation (Sections 201, 202, 203);
failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements (Section 226);
failing to provide off-duty meal and rest breaks and failing to
provide one hour of premium wages for missed breaks (Sections
226.7, 512); failing to pay overtime (Section 510); deficient
record-keeping (Sections 1174). The Plaintiff states that he has
exhausted the administrative notice requirements for bringing a
PAGA suit.
Before the Court is Defendant Charter's Motion to Dismiss the FAC.
Its arguments to dismiss or stay the action are twofold.
First, it argues that the Plaintiff's Class Claims should be
dismissed or stayed because another action, Justin Sonico v.
Charter Communications, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-01842-BAS-LL (S.D.
Cal. Sept. 25, 2019), was filed before the Plaintiff's action in
the Court and defines a putative class that subsumes the
Plaintiff's proposed class in the case. It further argues that the
"first-to-file" rule should apply to the Plaintiff's PAGA claim as
well, because it is subsumed by and overlaps with the claims in
three concurrent PAGA actions filed in state court, citing
Marcelino v. Charter Comm'ns, LLC, No. 37-2019-00016478-CU-OE-CTL;
Sonico v. Charter Comm'ns, Inc., No. 37-2019-000055875-CU-OE-CTL;
Paredes v. Charter Comm'ns, Inc., No. 19STCV11536).
Second, the Defendant contends that the Court should dismiss or
stay the Plaintiff's PAGA claim under a doctrine established by
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S.
800 (1976). It argues that the factors considered under this
doctrine weigh in favor of dismissing or staying the action due to
the Marcelino, Sonico, and Paredes PAGA cases pending in state
court ("State PAGA Actions").
The Court recently compelled arbitration in the Sonico Putative
Class Action and stayed the case. The arbitration agreement to
which Sonico was bound also included a waiver of all
representative, collective, and class actions. Because the
agreement precluded Sonico from raising class claims in any forum,
the Court's order compelling Sonico to arbitration preserved only
claims in his individual capacity. Therefore, the Sonico putative
class on which the Defendant bases its first-to-file argument no
longer exists, and its attendant argument that the Plaintiff's
Class Claims should be dismissed or stayed based on Sonico is moot.
For this reason, Judge Bashant focuses only on the Defendant's
arguments to dismiss or stay the Plaintiff's PAGA claim, and limits
her summary to the State PAGA Actions.
Judge Bashant finds that the Defendant has not cited, and she has
not found, any binding authority contravening the notion that the
first-to-file rule serves principles of federal comity and
therefore does not extend to state court proceedings. Thus, she
declines to forgo jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's action on the
basis the State PAGA Actions were first filed before the state
court.
The Judge further finds that the State PAGA Actions' ability to
resolve all issues before the Court (factor 8) counsels against a
stay of the action, because the Sonico and Marcelino PAGA cases
will not resolve the California Labor Code violations alleged by
Maharaj in the action. Further, she finds that even if the order
of jurisdiction (factor 4) may weigh marginally in favor of a
stay--although only the PAGA actions are at issue in the
coordinated action and no significant action has been taken by the
state court--the avoidance of piecemeal litigation (factor 3) cuts
against even a partial stay of the action. The remaining factors,
she says, are either irrelevant to thie action (factors 1, 2) or
are neutral (factors 5, 6, 7) to her determination. Thus, the
Colorado River factors, on the whole, do not justify the Court's
declination of jurisdiction over the instant case.
Alternatively, the Defendant moves the Court to stay the action
pursuant to its inherent authority.
First, Judge Bashant finds a fair possibility that staying the
action pending resolution of the State PAGA Actions could damage
the Plaintiff and the class. Second, she notes that the Defendant
removed the lawsuit from state court to the Court, presumably to
avail itself of federal jurisdiction. To argue now that requiring
the Defendant to litigate in the Court would cause hardship or
inequity is therefore not persuasive.
These differences also factor into the third consideration for a
stay. Because the State PAGA Actions will not resolve the Class
Claims, Judge Bashant holds that they will remain outstanding even
if the state court's resolution of the Marcelino, Sonico, and
Paredes PAGA claims apply to the PAGA claim brought by Maharaj.
Further, because Maharaj's PAGA claims and Class Claims are based
on the same factual predicate, it makes little sense to enter a
stay to allow the former to be resolved by the state court, at some
indeterminate period in the future, while leaving the latter
pending for this Court's review. The Judge therefore declines to
stay the case pursuant to the Court's inherent authority.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bashant denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. She ordered the Defendant to file an Answer to
the FAC by March 9, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ppebs78 from Leagle.com.
CLOVER HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
April 6, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Clover Health
Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW) ("Clover Health" or the
"Company") f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III
(NYSE: IPOC) ("Social Capital III") securities: (1) between October
6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period");
and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger of
Clover and Social Capital III (the "Registration Statement").
Investors suffering losses on their Clover 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.
On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research released a report entitled
"Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs' Lured Retail Investors Into
a Broken Business Facing an Active, Undisclosed DOJ
Investigation[.]" The report alleged, among other things, that
"Clover has not disclosed that its business model and its software
offering, called the Clover Assistant, are under active
investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is
investigating at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to
marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or
12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
On February 5, 2021, Clover issued a response in which it admitted,
among other things, that it was aware of the DOJ investigation. The
Company also disclosed that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), indicating that it is
conducting an investigation and requesting document and data
preservation from January 1, 2020 to the present.
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) the Company's
Clover Assistant platform was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing
practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to the Company, since
it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales
were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and
misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported
"best-in-class" technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover's
sales were by way of an undisclosed relationship between Clover and
an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and
(5) 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 or otherwise acquired Clover securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 6, 2021 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain
legal requirements. 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 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]
CLOVER HEALTH: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of April 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Clover Health
Investments, Corp. ("Clover" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CLOV)
between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), including investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Clover securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus in connection with its merger
with Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH") in or
around December 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than April 6, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Clover investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Clover Securities Class Litigation
Clover, headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, is a health insurance
services company that primarily provides Medicare Advantage
healthcare plans for seniors. On January 7, 2021, Clover merged
with SCH, a publicly listed special-purpose acquisition company,
and began to trade under the symbol "CLOV." The action alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that (1)
Clover's Clover Assistant platform was under active investigation
by the Department of Justice ("DOJ") for at least 12 issues ranging
from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party
deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation presented a risk to the Company,
since it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's
sales were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and
misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported
"best-in-class" technology; and (4) a significant portion of
Clover's sales were derived from an undisclosed relationship
between Clover and an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's
Head of Sales.
On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report
revealing the existence of an active DOJ investigation of the
Company for issues including kickbacks, marketing practices,
undisclosed third-party deals, and Clover's software "Clover
Assistant" that purportedly serves "low-income and often overlooked
communities." On this news, Clover's stock price fell $1.72, or
approximately 12.3%, from its closing price of $13.95 on February
3, 2021, to close at $12.23 on February 4, 2021.
The following day, on February 5, 2021, Clover disclosed that it
was aware of the DOJ investigation prior to its merger with SCH,
and that it had received an inquiry from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission following publication of Hindenburg's report.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
[GN]
COFFEE HOLDING: Agrees to indemnify Customer Against Cohen Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company agrees
to indemnify its customer against a putative class action suit
filed against it by David Cohen.
A significant customer of the company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on or about February 2,
2021, concerning the labeling on private label coffee productions
the company sold to the customer.
The plaintiff, David Cohen, purporting to represent a class of
individuals who purchased coffee products from the company's
customer, generally allege that the customer sold private label
coffee products manufactured by us which falsely described the
number of cups of coffee that could be made from the amount of
product purchased.
The company is not named as a defendant in the action, but the
company had agreed to indemnify the customer for the costs and
expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit and for any liability
the customer may suffer as a result.
The complaint asserts a variety of claims under Massachusetts
consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary damages as
well as other forms of relief including class certification,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.
Coffee Holding said, "We believe the allegations in the complaint
are wholly without merit and that the claims asserted are legally
deficient, and we intend to vigorously support the customer in
defending the action. As of the filing of this Form 10-K, we are
unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."
Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.
COFFEE HOLDING: Facing Brodsky and Diamond Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coffee Holding Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2020, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit initiated by Eileen Brodsky and
Rhonda Diamond.
The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on or about December 21, 2020.
The plaintiffs, Eileen Brodsky and Rhonda Diamond, purporting to
represent a class of individuals who purchased coffee products at
one of the company's supermarket customers, generally allege that
such client sold private label coffee products manufactured by us
and one of our partners, which falsely described the number of cups
of coffee that could be made from the amount of product purchased.
These parties are also named as defendants in the action.
The complaint asserts a variety of claims under New York and
California consumer protection laws, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages, including disgorgement and restitution, as well as other
forms of relief including class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest.
Coffee Holding said, "We believe the allegations in the complaint
are wholly without merit and that the claims asserted are legally
deficient, and the company intends to vigorously defend the action.
As of the filing of this Form 10-K, we have not been served with
the complaint. Therefore, we are unable to predict the ultimate
outcome of this lawsuit."
Coffee Holding Co., Inc. operates as a coffee roaster and dealer.
The Company focuses on roasting, blending, packaging, and
distributing coffee for sale under private labels and their own
brands for companies throughout the United States and Canada.
Coffee Holding also sells unprocessed green coffee to specialty
gourmet roasters. The company is based in Staten Island, New York.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Appeal in ERISA Related Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal made
by the company in the class action suit related to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), is pending.
In June 2016, a putative class action claiming that residual
annuity payments made to certain participants in the
Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan did not
comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed
against the Plan, the Company and certain individuals in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The relief sought includes recalculation of benefits, pre- and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.
This action was certified as a class action in July 2017.
In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed
certain claims on consent of the parties. In August 2020, the Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims.
The Company and the Plan are contesting this action vigorously and,
in September 2020, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settlement in Dog Food Suits Initially OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties to
the putative class action lawsuits in the United States (other than
the class action filed on behalf of a European Union class),
entered into a settlement agreement, which was preliminarily
approved by the court in February 2021.
During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, Hill Pet Nutrition's
announced a voluntary recall, which was subsequently expanded, of
select canned dog food products due to potentially elevated levels
of Vitamin D resulting from a supplier error.
In the United States, the voluntary recall was conducted in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Following
the announcement of the voluntary recall, and as of December 31,
2020, Hill's and/or the Company have been named as defendants in 37
putative class action lawsuits, one putative class action filed on
behalf of a European Union class and one individual action, all
related to the voluntary recall and filed in various jurisdictions
in the United States.
In addition, two putative class actions related to the voluntary
recall have been filed in Canada.
Eight of the putative class actions lawsuits in the United States
and one of the putative class action lawsuits in Canada have been
voluntarily dismissed.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2020, the parties to the
putative class action lawsuits in the United States (other than the
class action filed on behalf of a European Union class) entered
into a settlement agreement, which was preliminarily approved by
the court in February 2021.
The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2020.
Hill's is indemnified by the supplier related to the voluntary
recall. Sales of products voluntarily recalled represent less than
2% of Hill's annual Net sales. The sales loss and other costs
associated with the voluntary recall and its subsequent expansion
did not have a material impact on the Company's Net sales or
Operating profit for the year ended December 31, 2020 and are not
expected to have a material impact in future periods.
Colgate-Palmolive Company, together with its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells consumer products worldwide. The company
operates through two segments, Oral, Personal and Home Care; and
Pet Nutrition. Colgate-Palmolive Company was founded in 1806 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the case, Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated vs. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron, is still pending.
This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.
It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of the
company's common stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27,
2018 and alleges misleading statements resulted in artificially
inflated prices for the common stock.
On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending.
Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Approves Settlement with Zwick Partners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
District Court granted final approval of the Class settlement in
Zwick Partners, LP and Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Quorum Health Corporation,
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash,
Thomas D. Miller, and Michael J. Culotta.
This purported class action lawsuit previously filed in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee was amended on
April 17, 2017 to include Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T.
Smith and W. Larry Cash as additional defendants.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Quorum Health
Corporation, or QHC, shareholders and allege that the failure to
record a goodwill and long-lived asset impairment charge against
QHC at the time of the spin-off of QHC violated federal securities
laws.
The District Court denied all defendants' motions to dismiss on
April 20, 2018. The plaintiffs moved for class certification.
Plaintiffs also amended their complaint on September 14, 2018.
The company moved to dismiss the additional claims in the
plaintiffs' September 14, 2018 amended complaint and responded to
plaintiffs' class certification motion. On March 29, 2019, the
court granted the company's motion to dismiss the additional
claims. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on that same date.
On April 12, 2019, the company filed a petition for permission to
appeal the court's order granting class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was
denied on July 31, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to
amend their complaint for a third time to add additional claims,
which the District Court denied on August 2, 2019.
All parties have now reached a settlement of this case, which was
preliminarily approved by the District Court on July 27, 2020. On
September 17, 2020, Greenlight Capital requested exclusion from the
Class.
The defendants have settled with Greenlight Capital, and the
District Court granted final approval of the Class settlement on
November 30, 2020.
Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Final Hearing on Kirk Settlement Set for April 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Final
Fairness Hearing for the settlement in Becky Kirk, Perry Ayoob, and
Dawn Karzenoski, as representatives of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the CHS/Community Health
Systems, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan v. Retirement Committee of
CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20,
Principal Life Insurance Company, Principal Management Corporation,
and Principal Global Investors, LLC, is set for April 12, 2021.
This purported class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on August 8, 2019.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former
participants in the CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan and allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by offering certain investments in the Plan that
were more expensive and/or did not perform as well as other
marketplace alternatives.
The company had reached a tentative, immaterial settlement with the
plaintiffs which was preliminarily approved by the District Court
on December 8, 2020.
The Final Fairness Hearing for the settlement is set for April 12,
2021.
Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.
COMPASS GROUP: Germain FLSA and ADA Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILNORD GERMAIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. COMPASS GROUP USA, INC., FLIK
INTERNATIONAL CORP., and ADRIAN L. MEREDITH, Case No.
11-2021-CA-000261-0001-XX, was removed from the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, Collier County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on February 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 2:21-cv-00149 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Compass Group USA, Inc. is a foodservice and support services
company, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Flik International Corp. is a food services company based in Rye
Brook, New York. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven A. Siegel, Esq.
Ilanit S. Fischler, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone (954) 525-4800
E-mail: ssiegel@fisherphillips.com
ifischler@fisherphillips.com
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: US Oil Fund, LP Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concierge Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the
company's subsidiaries continue to defend a consolidated putative
class action suit entitled, In re: United States Oil Fund, LP
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740.
On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF") and
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), John P. Love, and Stuart P.
Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
by purported shareholder Robert Lucas.
The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff.
The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re:
United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under
the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class
Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that
became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as
subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain
extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused
the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19
global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO,
John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F
Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and move for their dismissal.
Concierge Technologies, Inc. through its wholly-owned operating
subsidiary Kahnalytics, Inc., is in the business of importing,
selling, distributing and installing high-definition digital video
recorders with GPS mapping, audio recording, wireless broadcasting,
playback and security features as conceptualized to provide
historical records of vehicle driving behavior and mobile
incidents. The company is based in San Clemente, California.
CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Class Settlement in Feliciano Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CLAUDINNE FELICIANO, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORELOGIC SAFERENT, LLC,
a/k/a CORELOGIC RENTAL PROPERTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
17-CV-05507 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the proposed class
action settlement with the Defendant.
The action is a class action against the Defendant on behalf of a
class of consumers that was previously certified over its
objections under the following class definition: "All individuals
who within two years prior to the commencement of this action (1)
were the subject of a credit report prepared by RPS; (2) prior to
the issuance of the credit report, were a party in a Housing Court
Proceeding filed in a New York State court, which had a disposition
of dismissed, discontinued or withdrawn; and (3) the RPS credit
report referenced the Housing Court Proceeding but failed to
include such disposition."
After review and consideration of the Settlement Agreement, the
papers in support of the motion, including the Lesser Declaration,
all of its accompanying exhibits, and all prior proceedings in the
Action, Judge Hellerstein finally approved the Settlement Agreement
submitted by the parties pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in
the best interests of the Class. The Settlement Agreement will
therefore be deemed incorporated herein and the proposed settlement
is finally approved and will be consummated in accordance with the
terms and provisions thereof, except as amended or clarified by any
subsequent order issued by the Court.
The action dismissed on the merits, with prejudice and without
costs, except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Final
Order and Judgment. In the event that there is a cy pres
remainder, as set forth the Settlement Agreement, Judge Hellerstein
approved the cy pres recipients and distribution.
Upon the Effective Date, the Released Parties will be released and
discharged by the Plaintiff and the members of the Class [except
for the persons identified in Exhibit A who have timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Action] in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order.
Upon consideration of the Class Counsel's application for fees and
costs and other expenses, Judge Hellerstein awarded the class
Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $560,000, and $95,000 in
reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecuting the Actions,
which amounts the Defendant has agreed to pay in addition to the
consideration for the Class. He directed payment as provided under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Upon consideration of the Class Counsel's application for a service
award for the Named Plaintiff, the Named Plaintiff is awarded a
service award in the amount of $20,000 for her services in
assisting the prosecution of the case, and Judge Hellerstein
directed payment as provided under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
The parties and each Class Member (except those persons identified
in Exhibit A) have irrevocably submitted to the exclusive
jurisdiction of this Court for any suit, action, proceeding, or
dispute arising out of the Settlement Agreement.
Judge Hellerstein finds, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, that there is no just reason for delay,
and directed the Clerk to enter final judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Final Approval Order
& Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/ackjrdfk from
Leagle.com.
COUNTERPATH CORP: Facing Alianza Merger Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
CounterPath Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 16 2021, that
the company is facing multiple putative class action suits related
to its merger with Alianza, Inc.
on December 6, 2020, CounterPath Corporation, entered into an
agreement and plan of merger, which, as it may be amended from time
to time with Alianza, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and CounterPath
Merger Sub, Inc., a Nevada corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Alianza. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into CounterPath
continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Alianza.
On January 22, 2021, CounterPath filed a Definitive Proxy Statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in anticipation of a
forthcoming special meeting of CounterPath's stockholders to
determine whether the Merger should be approved.
on January 7, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
captioned Chakra Chamala v. CounterPath Corporation, et al., NYCSC
Index No. 650111/2021, against CounterPath and its directors.
On January 21, 2021, a similar putative class action captioned
Ciccotelli v. CounterPath Corporation, et al., NYCSC Index No.
650451/2021 was filed against the same defendants.
The complaints allege that CounterPath's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to engage in a sufficiently
robust sales process prior to the Merger, allegedly failing to
obtain sufficient consideration for CounterPath's stockholders in
connection with the Merger, and purportedly failing to make
adequate disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy regarding the
Merger.
Following the filing of the Definitive Proxy, on February 2, 2021,
two putative class action complaints were filed in the District
Court of Clark County, Nevada, captioned Maria Golenkov v.
CounterPath Corporation, et al., Case No: A-21-828751-B and Dean
Klein v. CounterPath Corporation, et al., Case No: A-21-828719-B,
against CounterPath and its directors. Both complaints make
substantially similar allegations, including that CounterPath's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly engaging
in a conflicted sales process with Alianza, purportedly failing to
make adequate disclosures in the Definitive Proxy, and allegedly
failing to obtain sufficient consideration for CounterPath's
stockholders in connection with the Merger.
On February 4, 2021, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Gallo v. CounterPath Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01031
(S.D.N.Y.) against CounterPath and its directors. The complaint
alleges that the Definitive Proxy omits or misrepresents material
information with respect to the Merger preventing stockholders from
becoming sufficiently informed prior to voting on the Merger.
Additionally, on January 19, 2021, CounterPath received a demand
letter sent on behalf of Chakra Chamala, plaintiff in one of the
actions identified above, and on February 6, 2021, CounterPath
received a demand letter sent on behalf of Harry Haeseker. The
letters demanded that CounterPath make supplemental disclosures to
investors regarding the Merger based on similar factual and legal
arguments as in the lawsuits discussed above.
CounterPath and the other named defendants deny that they have
violated any laws or breached any duties to CounterPath's
stockholders and believe that these lawsuits and demand letters are
without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required to
the Definitive Proxy under any applicable law, rule or regulation.
However, solely to eliminate the burden and expense of litigation
and to avoid any possible disruption to the Merger that could
result from further litigation, CounterPath is providing
supplemental disclosures.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3kulbch.
CounterPath Corporation designs, develops, and sells software and
services that enable enterprises and telecommunication service
providers to deliver unified communications services over Internet
protocol-based networks in North America and internationally. The
Company was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Vancouver,
Canada.
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) related class action suit, is pending.
In August and September 2020, two Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut against CVS Health,
Aetna, and several current and former executives, directors and/or
members of Aetna's Compensation and Talent Management Committee:
Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al. and Flaim v. Aetna Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
premised on allegations that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to
participants in the Aetna 401(k) Plan's investment in company stock
between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses
related to the performance of the Company's long-term care business
unit.
The district court consolidated the actions and the Company has
moved to dismiss the amended and consolidated class action
complaint.
The Company also received a related document request pursuant to
ERISA Section 104(b), to which the Company has responded.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and
Corporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS HEALTH: Miami FFPO Retirement Trust Suit Dismissed w/ Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the case City of
Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust, et al.
(formerly known as Anarkat), was recently dismissed with prejudice.
Beginning in February 2019, multiple class action complaints, as
well as a derivative complaint were filed by putative plaintiffs
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the Company's long-term care (LTC)
business unit.
Since filing, several of the cases have been consolidated, and the
first-filed federal case, City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police
Officers' Retirement Trust, et al., was recently dismissed with
prejudice.
The Company and its current and former officers and directors are
defending themselves against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare's LTC operations,
which include distribution of pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy
consulting and other ancillary services to chronic care facilities
and other care settings. It operates through three segments:
Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC and Corporate. The company is based
in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
DECK CAPITAL: Notice of Dismissal of Lawsuit Upon Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby provided to all persons who held shares of On Deck
Capital, Inc. ("On Deck" or the "Company") common stock at any time
during the period from and including July 28, 2020 through October
13, 2020.
The purpose of this Notice is to inform you about developments with
respect to the putative class action lawsuit captioned Doaty v.
Breslow, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0763-MTZ (the "Action"), including
the dismissal of the Action and an agreement to pay attorneys' fees
and expenses to counsel for Plaintiff in the Action.
On July 28, 2020, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Enova International, Inc. ("Enova") pursuant to which,
On Deck shareholders would receive 0.12 cents per share in cash and
0.092 of a share of Enova common stock for each share of On Deck
held (the "Merger"). On August 25, 2020, the Company filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a form S-4 registration
statement containing a preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy") in
connection with the stockholder vote on October 7, 2020 relating to
the Merger.
On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff Conrad Doaty, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed the Action and named as
defendants members of the Company's Board of Directors (the
"Board"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Board
violated its fiduciary duties under Delaware law by failing to
provide all material information in the Proxy required for
stockholders to cast an informed vote regarding the Merger. As
relief, the complaint sought, among other things, an injunction
against the Merger, damages and an award of attorneys' and experts'
fees.
On September 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction.
The Company and the other defendants have denied that they
committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful
acts that were or could have been alleged in the Action, and
expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied
with their fiduciary and other legal duties.
After the complaint was filed, the Company and its Board determined
to provide additional disclosures to the Proxy to address the
allegations in the Action in a Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on
September 28, 2020 (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). On October 16,
2020, the Court approved a stipulation under which the Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the Action. The Court retained jurisdiction
solely for the purpose of adjudicating the anticipated application
of Plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in connection with the Action (the "Fee
and Expense Application"). Following negotiations, the Company,
while denying any and all liability, and maintaining that the Proxy
already contained all material information required for
stockholders to cast an informed vote regarding the Merger prior to
the Supplemental Disclosures, agreed to pay $275,000 to Plaintiff's
counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
the anticipated Fee and Expense Application. The Court has not been
asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses or their reasonableness.
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Defendants may be contacted as
follows:
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
Juan E. Monteverde
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Stefan Atkinson, P.C.
Dan Cellucci
Sam Sullivan
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 446-4800
Attorneys for Defendants
VEDDER PRICE P.C.
Thomas P. Cimino, Jr.
Brian W. Ledebuhr
222 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 609-7500
Attorneys for Buyer Enova International, Inc. [GN]
EBIX INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Ebix, Inc. (EBIX)
Class Period: 11/9/2020 - 2/19/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 23, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ebix-inc-securities-litigation-1
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
EBIX INC: Glancy Prongay Continues Investigation of Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) investors concerning the Company
and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities
laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Ebix 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/ebix-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 February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.
On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as 40% during
intraday trading on February 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Ebix should consider their options to aid the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
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 H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
EBIX INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Feb. 22 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Teifke v.
Ebix, Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-01589) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix, Inc.
("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Ebix 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/ebix-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 or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.
On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.
On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to
determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in
the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor
was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Ebix securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, 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 H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
EBIX INC: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EBIX) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between November 9, 2020 and February 19,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
According to the complaint, on February 19, 2021, Ebix revealed
that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a
result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to
evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions
that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the
Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that
there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design
controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle
sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In
addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of
$30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust
account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020.
Following this disclosure, shares of Ebix's common stock fell
$20.24 per share, or nearly 40% in value, to close on February 22,
2021 at $30.50 per share.
Current Ebix stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the
Company's stock prior to November 9, 2020 are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC (David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 – 1585,
or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and
their legal rights and options. Additional information may also be
found at https://kaskelalaw.com/case/ebix-der/.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.
CONTACT:
David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
EBIX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) ("Ebix") on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and February
19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who purchased or acquired Ebix securities during the
Class Period may, no later than April 23, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James
Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435;
toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/ebix-inc-securities-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ebix
Ebix supplies infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial,
travel, cash remittances, and healthcare industries.
The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Ebix filed its
quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2020 on a Form
10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stating in
relevant part that the "Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our 'disclosure controls
and procedures' . . . [and] have concluded that these disclosure
controls and procedures are effective."
On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to Ebix's gift card business
in India. RSM also stated that there was a material weakness
related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the gift or
prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or
detect a material misstatement." Additionally, Ebix and RSM
disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.
Following this news, Ebix's share price fell $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) there was
insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of
certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card
business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was
a material weakness in Ebix's internal controls over the gift or
prepaid revenue transaction cycle; (3) Ebix's independent auditor,
RSM, was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Ebix's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Ebix investors may, no later than April 23, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
EBIX INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Ebix,
Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities from
November 9, 2020 through February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until April 26, 2021 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.
On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there was insufficient
audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain
significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in
India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a
material weakness in the Company's internal controls over the gift
or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's
independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over
disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been
transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel; and (4) 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
EBIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ebix, Inc. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
EBIX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13163&wire=1
Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX)
EBIX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020
- February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 23, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13163&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ebix,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) that there was insufficient audit
evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant
unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during
the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness
in Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor
was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) 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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
EHang Holdings Limited (EH)
Class Period: 12/12/2019 - 2/16/2021 (and on February 16, 2021,
only for those who purchased shares at or above the price of
$112.00).
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ehang-holdings-limited-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 23 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York captioned Chaumont v. EHang
Holdings Limited, et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-01526 ) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired EHang
Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between December 12, 2019 and February
16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until April 19, 2021
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.
On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a
research report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to
Crash and Burn." Citing "extensive evidence" including
"behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded phone calls, and videos of
on-site visits to EH’s various facilities," the report alleged
that EHang is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely
fabricated revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer
[Shanghai Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.] who appears to
us to be more interested in helping inflate the value of its
investment in EH . . . than about buying its products." Wolfpack
Research also noted that "in just 14 months as a publicly traded
company, EH’s PR team has put out 50 press releases . . . .
However, EH’s constant stream of press releases are easily proven
untrue." Finally, the report alleged that Wolfpack Research
"obtained Chinese court records which show that EH’s ADRs may
already be in serious jeopardy due to legal issues in China."
On this news, the Company’s share price fell $77.79, or
approximately 62.7%, to close at $46.30 per share, 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: (1) that the Company’s purported regulatory approvals
in Europe and North America for its EH2216 were for use as a drone,
not for carrying passengers; (2) that EHang’s relationship with
its purported primary customer is a sham; (3) that EHang has only
collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADSs began
trading on the NASDAQ exchange; (4) that the Company’s
manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence
of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; (5) 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.
If you purchased EHang ADSs during the Class Period, you may move
the Court no later than April 19, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint
you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
purchased Mesoblast securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. 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:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired EHang
Holdings Limited ("EHang" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EH) securities
from December 12, 2019 through February 16, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until April 19, 2021 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a
research report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to
Crash and Burn." Citing "extensive evidence" including
"behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded phone calls, and videos of
on-site visits to EH's various facilities," the report alleged that
EHang is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated
revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai
Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd.] who appears to us to be
more interested in helping inflate the value of its investment in
EH…than about buying its products." Wolfpack Research also noted
that "in just 14 months as a publicly traded company, EH's PR team
has put out 50 press releases…However, EH's constant stream of
press releases are easily proven untrue." Finally, the report
alleged that Wolfpack Research "obtained Chinese court records
which show that EH's ADRs may already be in serious jeopardy due to
legal issues in China."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $77.79, or
approximately 62.7%, to close at $46.30 per share on February 16,
2021, thereby injuring investors.
The lawsuit 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 purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North
America for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying
passengers; (2) its relationship with its purported primary
customer is a sham; (3) EHang has only collected on a fraction of
its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in
December 2019; (4) the Company's manufacturing facilities were
practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing
equipment or employees; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant
times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired EHang securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ehang Holdings Limited.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
EH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13163&wire=1
Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH)
EH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2019
- February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13163&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ehang
Holdings Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported
regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216
were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its
relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii)
EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since
its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the
Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and
lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline 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]
ENPHASE ENERGY: Hurst Securities Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Enphase Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a securities class action suit initiated by Gregory A.
Hurst.
On or about June 17, 2020, Gregory A. Hurst filed a securities
class action lawsuit against the company, its chief executive
officer and its chief financial officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's common stock between February 26, 2019 and
June 17, 2020.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, he seeks to recover
damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock during the putative class
period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered
financial harm as a result.
The court appointed Plaintiff as the Lead Plaintiff on November 30,
2020. On December 7, 2020, the court granted the parties'
stipulation setting the schedule for the filing of an amended
complaint and Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss.
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
Defendants asserting substantially the same allegations as the
original complaint purportedly on behalf of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between
February 26, 2019 and June 16, 2020.
Enphase said, "We dispute all allegations, intend to defend the
matter vigorously and believe the claims are without merit."
Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company. The
company delivers smart, easy-to-use solutions that manage solar
generation, storage and communication on one intelligent platform.
The company revolutionized the solar industry with our
microinverter technology and it produces a fully integrated
solar-plus-storage solution. The company is based in Fremont,
California.
EPIC GAMES: Class Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action settlement with Epic Games, Inc. ("Epic") has
received preliminary approval from the Superior Court of North
Carolina, Tenth Judicial District. Under the settlement, all U.S.
players of Fortnite: Save the World and Rocket League who bought a
random item loot box in either game before Epic Games discontinued
them will receive certain benefits immediately and automatically.
The settlement also provides up to $26.5 million in cash and other
benefits to U.S.-based Fortnite and Rocket League players to
resolve claims arising from players’ purchases of Fortnite and
Rocket League in-game items.
Beginning on Feb. 22, Epic will deposit 1,000 V-Bucks, the Fortnite
virtual currency, or 1,000 Rocket League Credits, into the accounts
of U.S. players who bought a random item loot box. These deposits
will be automatic and players do not need to do anything to claim
them, though it may take a few days for all eligible players to
receive them.
Additionally, players who believe they were harmed or damaged by
virtue of their in-game Fortnite or Rocket League purchases and
meet certain criteria can file a claim for a cash payment of up to
$50 or a virtual currency deposit of up to 13,500 V-Bucks (in
Fortnite) or 13,000 Credits (in Rocket League). Legal guardians of
players who are minors that made in-game purchases without parental
permission can seek partial refunds of up to $50, but must agree to
the closure of their child’s Epic Games accounts.
Fortnite and Rocket League players who made in-game purchases can
learn more information about the settlement by visiting
www.EpicLootBoxSettlement.com. Important dates and documents will
be posted on that website.
Preliminary approval of the settlement was received in February
2021 in the matter of Beau Zanca, et al. v. Epic Games, Inc., Case
No. 21-cv-000534.
Contacts:
Whitfield Bryson, LLP
Daniel K. Bryson
epicsettlement@whitfieldbryson.com [GN]
ERIE INSURANCE: Saturno Seeks Insurance Claims for COVID-19 Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
SATURNO, LLC D/B/A MODERN MALE BARBER SHOP, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. ERIE INSURANCE
EXCHANGE 100 Erie Insurance Place, Case No. 1:21-cv-00072-SPB (W.D.
Pa., Feb. 10, 2021) alleges that the Defendant has wrongfully
denied the Plaintiff's and Class members' insurance claims arising
from the interruption of the Plaintiff's and Class members'
businesses.
According to the complaint, an actual case or controversy exists
regarding the Plaintiff's and the other Class members' rights and
Erie's obligations under the Policies to reimburse Plaintiff and
Class Members for the full amount of business income losses
incurred by Plaintiff and the other Class members in connection
with the suspension of their businesses stemming from orders
intended to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic.
To protect from losses caused by situations like this, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nationwide Class members
obtained insurance policies from the Defendant that included
business interruption coverage. In breach of the insurance
obligations Defendant undertook in exchange for premium payments,
which Plaintiff and Class members paid.
On January 31, 2020, United States Health and Human Services
Secretary Alex M. Azar II declared a public health emergency for
the entire United States to aid the nation's healthcare community
in responding to COVID-19. On March 13, 2020, the President of the
United States issued a proclamation that the COVID-19 outbreak in
the United States constitutes a national emergency.
In response to this public health crisis, every state made an
emergency declaration by March 16, 2020. Moreover, civil
authorities in nearly every state also ordered some form of social
distancing measures, including stay-at-home orders restrictions on
large gatherings and orders closing or restricting service at
restaurants and bars except for takeout and delivery.
In Pennsylvania, on March 6, 2020, Governor Tom Wolf issued a
Proclamation of Disaster Emergency, calling the COVID-19 pandemic a
"threat of imminent disaster and emergency."
The Plaintiff runs Modern Male Barber Shop, a barber shop and men's
grooming establishment, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
The Defendant Erie is a reciprocal insurance exchange organized
under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business
in Erie, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Goodrich, Esq.
Lauren R. Nichols, Esq.
JACK GOODRICH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 900
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 261-4663
- and -
James C. Haggerty, Esq.
HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER
& KUPERSMITH, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 350-6600
- and -
Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
SCHMIT KRAMER, P.C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 232-6300
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Rd.
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
EXACT SCIENCES: Genomic Continues to Defend Flannery Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exact Sciences Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Genomic Health
continues to defend an individual and class action complaint
entitled, Flannery v. Genomic Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
2020-0492.
In connection with the Company's combination with Genomic Health,
on June 22, 2020, Suzanne Flannery, a purported former stockholder
of Genomic Health, filed a Verified Individual and Class Action
Complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Flannery v.
Genomic Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2020-0492.
Flannery amended her complaint on November 23, 2020. The amended
complaint asserts individual and class action claims, including:
(i) a violation of 8 Del. C. Section 203 by Genomic Health, Exact
Sciences and a purported controlling group of former Genomic Health
stockholders; (ii) conversion by Genomic Health, Exact Sciences and
Spring Acquisition Corp.; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty by Genomic
Health's former directors; (iv) breach of fiduciary duty by the
purported controlling group; and (v) aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty against Exact Sciences, Spring Acquisition and
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Genomic Health's financial advisor in the
combination.
The amended complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory
relief, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
All defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Exact Sciences Corporation is a molecular diagnostics company with
an initial focus on the early detection and prevention of
colorectal cancer. Exact Sciences Corp. launched Cologuard in 2014,
the first stool DNA test for colorectal cancer. The company is
based in Madison, Wisconsin.
EXETER FINANCE: Goldowsky Suit Moved From W.D.N.Y. to N.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRADLEY GOLDOWSKY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EXETER FINANCE CORP., Case No.
1:15-cv-00632, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on February 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00397-E to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged 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 overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Exeter Finance Corp. is a provider of automobile financing
services, with its principal place of business in Irving, Texas.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mich J. Lingle, Esq.
Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: (585) 272-0540
E-mail: mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
jferris@theemploymentattorneys.com
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Approves Settlement in BIPA Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that a federal judge approved a $650
million settlement of a privacy lawsuit against Facebook for
allegedly using photo face-tagging and other biometric data without
the permission of its users.
U.S. District Judge James Donato approved the deal in a
class-action lawsuit that was filed in Illlinois in 2015. Nearly
1.6 million Facebook users in Illinois who submitted claims will be
affected.
Donato called it one of the largest settlements ever for a privacy
violation.
"It will put at least $345 into the hands of every class member
interested in being compensated," he wrote, calling it "a major win
for consumers in the hotly contested area of digital privacy."
Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney who filed the lawsuit, told the
Chicago Tribune that the checks could be in the mail within two
months unless the ruling is appealed.
"We are pleased to have reached a settlement so we can move past
this matter, which is in the best interest of our community and our
shareholders," Facebook, which is headquartered in the San
Francisco Bay Area, said in a statement.
The lawsuit accused the social media giant of violating an Illinois
privacy law by failing to get consent before using
facial-recognition technology to scan photos uploaded by users to
create and store faces digitally.
The state's Biometric Information Privacy Act allowed consumers to
sue companies that didn't get permission before harvesting data
such as faces and fingerprints.
The case eventually wound up as a class-action lawsuit in
California.
Facebook has since changed its photo-tagging system [GN]
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settlement in Suit Against Unit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 18, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the Court in the class action suit against Reliance Trust
Company, a company subsidiary, has preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement.
Reliance Trust Company, the Company's subsidiary, is a defendant in
a class action arising out of its provision of services as the
discretionary trustee for a 401(k) Plan for one of its customers.
On behalf of the Plan participants, plaintiffs in the action, which
was filed in December 2015, sought damages and attorneys' fees, as
well as equitable relief, against Reliance and the Plan's sponsor
and record-keeper for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
At a non-jury trial conducted in March 2020, Reliance vigorously
defended the action and contended that no breaches of fiduciary
duty or prohibited transactions occurred and that Plan participants
suffered no damages.
At trial, Plaintiffs claimed damages of approximately $127 million
against all defendants.
On October 12, 2020, Reliance and plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement, which is subject to final court approval, to
settle all allegations and claims asserted in the action for $39.8
million without equitable relief. On October 14, 2020, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.
In the settlement agreement, Reliance admitted no wrongdoing or
liability with respect to any of the allegations or claims and
maintains that the Plan was managed, operated, and administered
during its tenure as the Plan's discretionary trustee in full
compliance with ERISA and applicable regulations. Upon final court
approval, all allegations and claims will be settled and released
with prejudice.
The Company recorded a liability for the agreed settlement amount
of $39.8 million and a corresponding loss in Other income
(expense), net on the consolidated statement of earnings for the
year ended December 31, 2020.
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. operates as a
financial services technology company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Integrated Financial Solutions
and Global Financial Solutions segments. The company was founded in
1968 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.
FIRST CLASS: Target Martinez Trial Date Continued to January 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL ALVARADO MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. FIRST
CLASS INTERIORS OF NAPLES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00583 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli Richardson of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division, granted Defendant MR Drywall Services, LLC's Motion to
Continue Target Trial Date.
In the conditionally certified collective action with two opt-in
classes, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policies and
practices violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants failed to pay them and the members of
the Overtime Class one and one-half times their regular hourly rate
for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week during the
relevant period. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants
failed to pay them and the members of the Overtime Class the
federal minimum wage for all hours worked after clocking in,
including hours spent attending safety meetings and performing
other such work.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
Castro and Martinez, and members of the Last Paycheck Class, for
their final two weeks of employment. They further claim that after
members of the Last Paycheck Class requested their wages,
Defendants First Class Interiors of Naples, LLC and Jose Roberto
Reyes terminated those drywall workers in violation of the FLSA's
anti-retaliation provision.
The Court has previously granted a motion to continue the trial
date in the case. In addition to the present Motion, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is pending before the
Court. A deadline has been set on May 21, 2021 for additional
dispositive motions and motions to decertify the conditionally
certified class. The Court previously entered a target trial date
of Nov. 30, 2021.
Via the Motion, MRD asks the Court to continue the current target
trial date, on the grounds that its lead counsel currently has a
trial already scheduled in another federal matter in Miami, Florida
during the target time period. MRD asks the Court to move the
target trial date until Jan. 13, 2022, or later in 2022.
The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion, objecting that the Court should
not grant a continuance of the target trial date because 1) the
matter will have been pending for five years, 2) pretrial dates
will fall over the 2022 holidays, 3) MRD has not shown good cause,
and 4) "in the district, deadlines should not be extended when one
party objects to the extension, a high standard not met in the
case." The Plaintiffs request an earlier trial date, such as
September, October, or early November.
Judge Richardson agrees with MRD that MRD has shown good cause for
moving the target trial date, as its lead counsel is currently on
call to try another case in federal court in Miami during the
period covered by the target trial date. Of course, for any of a
number of reasons, the lead counsel may not end up going to trial
at this time. But as of today, the Judge finds that the lead
counsel is still expected to be able to try the case in Miami at
that time. He says it seems likely that the counsel for the
Plaintiffs has been in a similar situation, where the counsel would
have benefited from the understanding of the opposing counsel and
the court regarding the counsel's scheduling conflicts. And the
Judge does not find that the Plaintiffs will be materially
prejudiced by the granting of the Motion.
Additionally, Judge Richardson will not move the trial to a date
earlier than January 2022 as the Plaintiffs request. He says the
deadline for dispositive motions and motions to decertify the
conditionally certified class action is on May 21, 2021. Moving
the trial date sooner, rather than later, will not allow the Court
adequate time to rule sufficiently in advance of the trial date on
the already pending Motion for Summary Judgment and any additional
motions that might be filed in May 2021. MRD has stated its intent
to file both a motion for summary judgment and a motion for
decertification. Given its heavy caseload and myriad pending
dispositive motions in other cases, decisions on dispositive
motions in the case cannot be expected in time to permit
preparation for a trial beginning before January 2022 anyway.
Therefore, moving the trial date sooner, rather than later, is not
feasible.
For these reasons, Judge Richardson granted MRD's Motion, which
moved to continue a target trial date, and the Court will set a new
trial date (and not merely a new target trial date) by separate
order in January 2022.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6u2hye8c from
Leagle.com.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Continues to Defend Emmons Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Emmons v. FirstEnergy
Corp. et al. (Common Pleas Court, Cuyahoga County, OH).
On August 4, 2020, a purported customer of FirstEnergy filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the company (FE), FirstEnergy
Service Company (FESC), Ohio Edison Company (OE), The Toledo Edison
Company (TE) and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI),
along with Energy Harbor LLC. (FES), alleging several causes of
action, including negligence and/or gross negligence, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and unfair or deceptive consumer acts
or practices.
On October 1, 2020, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint,
adding as a plaintiff a purported customer of FirstEnergy and
alleging a civil violation of the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act and
civil conspiracy against FE, FESC and FES.
FirstEnergy Corp. operates as a public utility holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, generates, transmits, and
distributes electricity, as well as offers exploration, production,
and distribution of natural gas. FirstEnergy provides energy
management and other energy related services. The company is based
in Akron, Ohio.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Consolidates Owens & Frand Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court had
consolidated Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al. and Frand v.
FirstEnergy Corp. et al., suits.
Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al. and Frand v. FirstEnergy Corp. et
al. (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio); on July 28, 2020 and
August 21, 2020, purported stockholders of the company (FE) filed
putative class action lawsuits against FE and certain FE officers,
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of FE common stock from
February 21, 2017 through July 21, 2020, asserting claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or
omissions by FirstEnergy concerning its business and results of
operations.
These actions have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been
appointed by the court.
FirstEnergy Corp. operates as a public utility holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, generates, transmits, and
distributes electricity, as well as offers exploration, production,
and distribution of natural gas. FirstEnergy provides energy
management and other energy related services. The company is based
in Akron, Ohio.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Smith, Buldas and Hudock Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class suits
entitled, Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Buldas v. FirstEnergy
Corp. et al., and Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy
Corp. et al., have been consolidated.
Smith v. FirstEnergy Corp. et al., Buldas v. FirstEnergy Corp. et
al., and Hudock and Cameo Countertops, Inc. v. FirstEnergy Corp. et
al. (Federal District Court, S.D. Ohio); on July 27, 2020, July 31,
2020, and August 5, 2020, respectively, purported customers of
FirstEnergy filed putative class action lawsuits against the
company FE and FirstEnergy Service Company (FESC), as well as
certain current and former FirstEnergy officers, alleging civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations and
related state law claims.
These actions have been consolidated.
FirstEnergy Corp. operates as a public utility holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, generates, transmits, and
distributes electricity, as well as offers exploration, production,
and distribution of natural gas. FirstEnergy provides energy
management and other energy related services. The company is based
in Akron, Ohio.
FLEETPRIDE INC: Woods BIPA Class Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAUNA WOODS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FLEETPRIDE, INC., Case No. 2020 CH
07558, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
February 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01093 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to obtain
written releases from the Plaintiff and the Class before it
collected, used and stored their biometric identifiers and
information; failing to inform them in writing that their biometric
identifiers and information were being collected and stored;
failing to inform them in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which their biometric identifiers or information
were being collected, stored, and used; and failing to publicly
provide a retention schedule or guideline for permanently
destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and information.
FleetPride, Inc. is a trucking company headquartered in Irving,
Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kwabena Appenteng, Esq.
Orly Henry, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 372-5520
E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com
ohenry@littler.com
- and –
Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 659-2000
E-mail: pmartin@littler.com
FOSTER POULTRY: Cal. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Leining Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROL LEINING, Plaintiff and Appellant v. FOSTER
POULTRY FARMS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No.
B291600 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's order
granting the Defendants summary judgment.
The American Humane Association has created a farm animal welfare
program by which it certifies farm-based food producers who comply
with its animal welfare standards. If a producer complies with
American Humane's standards, the producer can use American Humane's
"American Humane Certified" logo on its food, provided it also pays
a licensing fee for use of American Humane's trademark.
Foster Farms participates in the American Humane program and uses
the American Humane Certified logo on all its chicken products sold
in California. Foster Farms must obtain federal approval for the
labels of its chicken products, and has obtained that approval for
the labels which include American Humane's logo.
Foster Farms charges more for its chicken than other producers
whose chicken does not bear the American Humane Certified logo.
Plaintiff Leining purchased some Foster Farms chicken, in reliance
on the American Humane Certified logo on its label. She believed
that the American Humane certification meant that the chicken had
been humanely treated; but in the litigation, she alleges that the
true facts are American Humane certification means nothing, and
Foster Farms' chickens were treated inhumanely.
Ms. Leining brought suit against Foster Farms for its allegedly
misleading labels and against American Humane for its allegedly
negligent certification. The operative complaint is Leining's
first amended complaint. Leining re-alleged her causes of action
against Foster Farms for unfair competition, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability. She reasserted her original
theory of relief supporting each of these causes of action--that
her objectively reasonable understanding of the American Humane
Certified logo on the label was that Foster Farms's chickens had
been afforded a comfortable existence and a quick and painless
death, but this was untrue.
In accordance with the trial court's suggestion, Leining also added
American Humane as a Defendant, and alleged against it a cause of
action for negligent misrepresentation. Leining specifically
alleged that American Humane either made no examination of whether
Foster Farms's chickens were humanely raised according to
science-based standards or, if any examination had been performed,
it was careless and negligent.
After extensive litigation, both the Defendants were granted
summary judgment. The trial court concluded that the Defendants
had met their initial burden of establishing that American Humane's
certification was independent, reasonable, and involved some level
of expertise. It then considered, and rejected, each of the
Plaintiff's counter-arguments which purportedly raised a triable
issue of fact. Judgment was entered for the Defendants. Leining
filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, the parties briefed the merits of the trial court's
summary judgment ruling. In the combined respondents' brief,
Foster Farms argued that summary judgment in its favor could be
affirmed on the basis of federal preemption. The Court of Appeals
sought additional briefing on the issue which had been raised by
American Humane's demurrer -- whether a cause of action could be
asserted against it under Hanberry in the absence of physical
injury.
The Court of Appeals concludes it need not decide whether there are
triable issues of fact that would defeat summary judgment.
Instead, it first addresses Foster Farms' federal preemption
argument, and concludes the complaint against it, based on its
purportedly misleading labels, is barred by federal law.
Each of Leining's direct causes of action against Foster Farms is
based on the premise that its labels' inclusion of the American
Humane Certified logo was itself misleading, because the chicken
was not treated in a manner that an objectively reasonable consumer
would consider humane.
The Court of Appeals concludes that these causes of action are
barred by the doctrine of federal preemption, based on the express
preemption clause of the Poultry and Poultry Products Inspection
Act ("PPIA"). It finds that the Foster Farms labels, inclusive of
the American Humane Certified logo which Leining alleges is
misleading, were pre-approved by the Food Safety and Inspection
Service ("FSIS"), in accordance with the PPIA.
Its conclusion is confirmed by the FSIS' discussion of public
comments in the evolution of its Labeling Guideline on
Documentation Needed to Substantiate Animal Raising Claims for
Label Submission. Animal welfare advocates had specifically
requested the FSIS only approve third-party certifications from
entities with stricter standards than conventional industry
practices. FSIS refused, concluding that different claims meant
different things to different people, and that it would approve a
label containing a third-party certification as long as consumers
could learn from the third-party's website the standards the
certifier used--thereby enabling each consumer to make an informed
decision as to whether a particular certification met the
consumer's expectations for the language used.
The Appellate Court holds that Leining's causes of action based on
Foster Farms' allegedly misleading use of the word "humane" on its
labels would have it impose a particular meaning on "humane" when
used on a label, in direct contravention of the FSIS' determination
that the meaning of the word should be left to the certifier.
Hence, it concludes the causes of action against Foster Farms are
federally preempted.
Next, the it considers whether a Hanberry v. Hearst Corp. (1969)
276 Cal.App.2d 680 cause of action for negligent misrepresentation
can be asserted against a certifier of a product in the absence of
physical injury. Leining alleged a single cause of action, for
negligent misrepresentation, against American Humane.
The Court of Appeals concludes that it cannot. It finds that
Leining asserts no physical injury--only the economic harm involved
in the increased cost of the chicken she had been led to believe
had been humanely raised. The Hanberry cause of action is not
available to her. Even assuming that Leining can satisfy the other
elements of this cause of action for professional negligence in
business advice, the Court holds that she cannot establish that she
is a member of a "limited group of persons for whose benefit and
guidance" American Humane supplied its certification. Put simply,
American Humane anticipated Foster Farms would place its
certification on all of its chicken products in California, to
influence any potential chicken-buyers in the general public. That
is the opposite of a limited group of persons.
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeal affirmed on the basis
that Leining has not pleaded a viable cause of action against
either Defendant. The claims against Foster Farms are barred by
federal preemption, and the negligent certification claim against
American Humane is not viable in the absence of physical injury.
Foster Farms and American Humane will recover their costs on
appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zsrtuku7 from Leagle.com.
Drinker Biddle & Reath, Sheldon Eisenberg --
seisenberg@sullivantriggs.com -- Ryan M. Salzman --
ryan.salzman@faegredrinker.com -- and Mark E. Haddad for Plaintiff
and Appellant.
Duane Morris, Michaelle Pardo -- MCPardo@duanemorris.com -- Rebecca
Bazan -- REBazan@duanemorris.com -- and Paul J. Killion --
PJKillion@duanemorris.com -- for Defendants and Respondents
American Humane Association.
Mayer Brown, Dale J. Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Elizabeth
Crepps -- elizabeth.crepps@jud.ca.gov -- and Donald M. Falk --
dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- for Defendants and Respondents Foster
Poultry Farms, Inc.
FREEDOM FOODS: Faces Second Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Darren Linton, writing for Dairy News Australia, reports that
embattled Freedom Foods is facing a second class action alleging
shareholders were misled over a period of six years.
The company, which has a UHT milk factory in Shepparton, remains in
voluntary suspension from the Australian Stock Exchange while it
undergoes a recapitalisation which is due to be completed in
April.
In the past seven months, Freedom Foods has lost chief executive
officer Rory Macleod and chief financial officer Campbell Nicholas
who resigned at the end of June, sold their cereal and snack foods
business to Arnott's for $20 million.
Law firm Slater and Gordon filed a class action against Freedom
Foods Group Ltd and its auditor, Deloitte, in late December,
following the announcement of write-downs and adjustments to its
balance sheet totalling $590 million.
The class action alleges eligible shareholders have claims against
Freedom Foods and Deloitte as a result of acquiring shares between
December 7, 2014, and June 24, 2020. Freedom Foods announced to the
ASX that it has now been served with a second class action.
Law firm Phi Finney McDonald has lodged the class action backed by
litigation funder Omni Bridgeway. It alleges that over six years
management of Freedom capitalised certain day-to-day and other
expenses that ought to have been immediately expensed, and failed
to write off quantities of expired or obsolete inventory.
It also alleged that Freedom Foods long-standing auditor Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu (Deloitte) failed to correct these accounting
errors in their conduct of the audit of Freedom's annual and half
yearly reports over that period.
Freedom Foods has appointed Arnold Bloch Leibler to defend the
action. [GN]
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Bid for Class Status in Duarte Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in the putative class action suit entitled, Juan
Duarte, Betsy Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural
Guardians Juan Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty
Nobles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. United States Metals Refining Company (USMR), Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc. and Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No.
734-17, is still pending.
On January 30, 2017, a putative class action titled Juan Duarte,
Betsy Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural Guardians
Juan Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty Nobles, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United
States Metals Refining Company (USMR), Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Inc. and Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No. 734-17, was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey against USMR,
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX), and Amax Realty Development, Inc.
The defendants removed this litigation to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, where it remains pending, and
Freeport Minerals Corporation was added as a defendant.
The suit alleges that USMR generated and disposed of smelter waste
at the site and allegedly released contaminants on-site and
off-site through discharges to surface water and air emissions over
a period of decades and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for economic losses, including diminished property values,
additional soil investigation and remediation and other damages.
In January 2020, the parties completed briefing on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and are awaiting a decision by the
court.
FCX continues to vigorously defend this matter.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. engages in the mining of mineral properties
in North America, South America, and Indonesia. The company
primarily explores for copper, gold, molybdenum, silver, and other
metals, as well as oil and gas. The company was formerly known as
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and changed its name to
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. in July 2014. Freeport-McMoRan Inc. was
founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.
FUBOTV INC: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
fuboTV Inc. (FUBO)
Class Period: 3/23/2020 - 1/4/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-fubotv-inc-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
FUBOTV INC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Murphy, writing for SBCAmericas, reports that FuboTV, an
American streaming television service that focuses primarily on
live sports including NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS and international
soccer, has become the subject of a class action lawsuit.
New York law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
confirmed in a statement that the federal securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of fuboTV Inc from March 23,
2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive.
The filed complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements. It
is also alleged that there was failure to disclose to investors
that Fubo's growth in subscribers and profitability was
unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge, or that its
offering of products would be subject to cost escalation.
Fubo also stands accused of failing to disclose that it could not
successfully compete and perform as a sportsbook operator and could
not capitalize on its online sports wagering opportunity
Furthermore, the accusers allege that Fubo's data and inventory was
not differentiated to allow it to achieve its long-term advertising
growth goals and that its valuation was overstated considering its
total revenue and subscription levels.
Lastly, it is alleged that the acquisition of California-based tech
startup Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and
internal expertise and did not expand the company's addressable
market into sports wagering.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP cited the views of
analyst Richard Greenfield of Lightshed Partners who, on December
23, 2020 initiated coverage of Fubo with a sell rating and an $8
one-year price target. In connection with initiating coverage,
Lightshed called prospects of Fubo achieving success with sports
betting a "pure fantasy".
On this news, the shares of Fubo declined $11.90, or 21.22% over
two days to close at $44.18 on December 24, 2020. [GN]
GARRETT MOTION: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re
Garrett Motion Inc. Securities Litigation, Case Number 20 Civ. 7992
(JPC).
On September 25, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
was filed against Garrett Motion Inc. and certain current and
former Garrett officers and directors, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case
bears the caption: Steven Husson, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, v. Garrett Motion Inc., Olivier
Rabiller, Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, and Su Ping
Lu, Case No. 1:20-cv-07992-JPC. The Husson Action asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, for securities
fraud and control person liability.
On September 28, 2020, the plaintiff sought to voluntarily dismiss
his claim against Garrett Motion Inc. in light of the Company's
bankruptcy; this request was granted.
On October 5, 2020, another putative securities class action
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This case bears the caption: The
Gabelli Asset Fund, The Gabelli Dividend & Income Trust, The
Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc., The Gabelli Equity Trust Inc., SM
Investors LP and SM Investors II LP, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Su Ping Lu, Olivier Rabiller,
Alessandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean Deason, Craig Balis, Thierry
Mabru, Russell James, Carlos M. Cardoso, Maura J. Clark, Courtney
M. Enghauser, Susan L. Main, Carsten Reinhardt, and Scott A.
Tozier, Case No. 1:20-cv-08296-JPC.
The Gabelli Action also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
On November 5, 2020, another putative securities class action
complaint was filed against certain current and former Garrett
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This case bears the caption: Joseph
Froehlich, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Olivier Rabiller, Allesandro Gili, Peter Bracke, Sean
Deason, and Su Ping Lu, Case No. 1:20-cv-09279-JPC.
The Froehlich Action also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.
All three actions are currently assigned to Judge John P. Cronan.
Su Ping Lu filed a waiver of service in the Gabelli Action on
November 10, 2020. On November 24, 2020, competing motions were
filed seeking the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel
and the consolidation of the Husson, Gabelli, and Froehlich
Actions.
On December 8, 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Gabelli
Action – the Entwistle & Cappucci law firm – filed an unopposed
stipulation and proposed order that would (1) appoint the
plaintiffs in the Gabelli Action – the "Gabelli Entities" – the
lead plaintiffs; (2) would appoint Entwistle & Cappucci as lead
counsel for the plaintiff class; (3) consolidate the Gabelli
Action, the Husson Action, and the Froehlich Action; (4) set a date
by which lead plaintiff would file a consolidated amended complaint
by February 25, 2021; and (5) set a date by which defendants shall
respond to a consolidated amended complaint of April 26, 2021.
On January 21, 2021, the district court issued an order
consolidating the three actions as In re Garrett Motion Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case Number 20 Civ. 7992 (JPC), and
appointing the Gabelli entities as the lead plaintiffs.
The Company"s insurer, AIG has accepted the defense, subject the
customary reservation of rights.
The Bankruptcy Court has set a bar date of March 1, 2021 for,
among others, current and former shareholders to file
securities-related claims against the Company.
Garrett Motion said, "We are not yet able to assess the likelihood
that any such claims will be allowed. To the extent allowed, each
holder of such claims shall be entitled to receive, (x) its pro
rata share of the aggregate cash payments received or recoverable
from any insurance policies of the Company on account of any such
allowed claims and (y) solely to the extent that such payments are
less than the amount of its allowed claim, such treatment that is
consistent with section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code and otherwise
acceptable to the Debtors and the parties to the PSA in accordance
with the PSA."
Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. designs, manufactures and
sells highly engineered turbocharger and electric-boosting
technologies for light and commercial vehicle original equipment
manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle and independent
aftermarket.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces White Product Liability Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors LLC.
The case is captioned as Roy White v. General Motors LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00410-MEH (D. Colo., Feb. 10, 2021).
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael E. Hegarty.
General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial
services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance
Center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jay Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC-CHICAGO
10 North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
GEO GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Purported Class Suit in Florida Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the purported shareholder class action suit pending before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, is pending.
On July 7, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C.
Zoley, and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On October 1, 2020, the Court entered an unopposed order appointing
lead plaintiffs, approving the selection of counsel, dismissing the
initial complaint, and setting a deadline for the filing of an
amended complaint.
On November 18, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that
the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans––as well as J. David
Donahue, the Company's former Senior Vice President and President
of the GEO Secure Services division, and Ann M. Schlarb, the
Company's Senior Vice President of the GEO Care division––made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions related
to GEO's business––including quality of operations, corporate
social responsibility, competitive strengths, business strategies,
health and safety, sources of financing, dividend expectations, and
COVID-19 procedures.
The amended complaint is brought by lead plaintiffs James Michael
DeLoach and Edward Oketola, individually and on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities––other than the
defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which the defendants have
or had a controlling interest––who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period
from November 7, 2018 to August 5, 2020, inclusive.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleges that Messrs.
Zoley, Evans, and Donahue and Ms. Schlarb violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as
the court may deem proper.
On December 18, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
January 19, 2021, and defendants' reply was filed on February 2,
2021. The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed.
The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GEO GROUP: Class Suits Over Voluntary Work Program on Standby
-------------------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the trial court
overseeing two Washington cases has alerted the Company that
litigation will remain on standby due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Former civil immigration detainees at the Aurora Immigration
Processing Center filed a class action lawsuit on October 22, 2014,
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
The complaint alleges that the Company was in violation of the
Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the Federal Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").
The plaintiff class claims that the Company was unjustly enriched
because of the level of payment the detainees received for work
performed at the facility, even though the voluntary work program,
as well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
that are at issue in the case, are authorized by the Federal
government under guidelines approved by the United States Congress.
On July 6, 2015, the Court found that detainees were not employees
under the Colorado Minimum Wage Order and dismissed this claim. In
February 2017, the Court granted the plaintiff-class' motion for
class certification on the TVPA and unjust enrichment claims. The
plaintiff class seeks actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.
In the time since the Colorado suit was initially filed, three
similar lawsuits have been filed - two in Washington and one in
California. In Washington, one of the two lawsuits was filed on
September 9, 2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The second lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2017 by the State
Attorney General against the Company in the Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Pierce County, which the Company removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
October 9, 2017.
In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed on December 19,
2017 by immigration detainees against the Company in the U.S.
District Court Eastern Division of the Central District of
California. All three lawsuits allege violations of the respective
state's minimum wage laws.
However, the California lawsuit, like the Colorado suit, also
includes claims that the Company violated the TVPA and California's
equivalent state statute. The Court certified a nationwide class
which would allow the plaintiffs to primarily seek injunctive
relief or policy changes at a number of facilities if they are
successful on the merits of their claims.
On July 2, 2019, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in
the Washington Attorney General's Tacoma lawsuit based on the
Company's position that its legal defenses prevent the case from
proceeding to trial.
The federal court in Washington denied the Company's Motion for
Summary Judgment on August 6, 2019. However, on August 20, 2019,
the Department of Justice filed a Statement of Interest, which
asked the Washington court to revisit its prior denial of the
Company's intergovernmental immunity defense in the case.
While the Washington court ultimately elected not to dismiss the
case at the time, its order importantly declared that the Company's
intergovernmental immunity defense was legally viable, to be
ultimately determined at trial.
On July 20, 2020, the trial court for the two Washington cases
alerted the Company that the litigation continued to be on
"standby" due to the COVID-19 pandemic, "which is still 'raging and
explosive'" in the jurisdiction. As a result, a probable trial date
is unknown.
The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously
defend itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and
claims in these lawsuits. The Company has not recorded an accrual
relating to these matters at this time, as a loss is not considered
probable nor reasonably estimable at this stage of the lawsuits.
The GEO Group, Inc. is the first fully-integrated equity real
estate investment trust specializing in the design, financing,
development, and operation of correctional, detention, and
community reentry facilities around the globe. The company is based
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GEORGIA POWER: Bid for Class Cert. in Franchise Fee Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Power Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion for class
certification in the franchise fee related suit, is pending.
In 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Georgia
Power in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia alleging that
Georgia Power's collection in rates of amounts for municipal
franchise fees (which fees are paid to municipalities) exceeded the
amounts allowed in orders of the Georgia PSC and alleging certain
state law claims. This case has been ruled upon and appealed
numerous times over the last several years.
In one recent appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court remanded the case
and noted that the trial court could refer the matter to the
Georgia PSC to interpret its tariffs.
Following a motion by Georgia Power, in February 2019, the Superior
Court of Fulton County ordered the parties to submit petitions to
the Georgia PSC for a declaratory ruling and also conditionally
certified the proposed class.
In March 2019, Georgia Power and the plaintiffs filed petitions
with the Georgia PSC seeking confirmation of the proper application
of the municipal franchise fee schedule pursuant to the Georgia
PSC's orders.
Also in March 2019, Georgia Power appealed the class certification
decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals. In October 2019, the
Georgia PSC issued an order that found Georgia Power has
appropriately implemented the municipal franchise fee schedule.
On March 11, 2020, the Georgia Court of Appeals vacated the
Superior Court of Fulton County's February 2019 order granting
conditional class certification and remanded the case to the
Superior Court of Fulton County for further proceedings.
In September 2020, the plaintiffs and Georgia Power each filed
motions for summary judgment and the plaintiffs renewed their
motion for class certification.
Georgia Power said, "The amount of any possible losses cannot be
estimated at this time because, among other factors, it is unknown
whether a class will be certified, the ultimate composition of any
class, and whether any losses would be subject to recovery from any
municipalities."
Georgia Power Company engages in generation, transmission,
distribution, purchases, and sells electric service in Georgia. It
generates electricity from coal, nuclear, and natural gas sources,
as well as renewable sources, such as solar, hydroelectric, and
wind. The company was incorporated in 1930 and is based in Atlanta,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company is a subsidiary of The Southern
Company.
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Stadia Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------
Josiah Byler, writing for Screenrant, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Google claiming that
the company made deceptive claims about the framerate and
resolution performance of games on its cloud gaming service,
Stadia. Google Stadia was revealed at the Game Developers
Conference (GDC) in 2019. It was marketed as a service that would
allow people to play video games without the need for a console by
streaming games from Google servers to a person's phone, tablet,
Chrome browser, or Chromecast. Google first started publicly
experimenting with cloud gaming in 2018 with Project Stream, which,
due to a partnership with Ubisoft, allowed people to stream the
beloved game Assassin's Creed Odyssey for free through Google
Chrome.
Since the beginning, Google has marketed Stadia as having more
processing power than the most powerful consoles at the time of its
announcement -- the PlayStation 4 Pro and the Xbox One X -- thus
the service would run these games better than its console rivals.
Only a handful of games were available at launch and Stadia's
library has continued to be a weak point for the service. At the
beginning of February, Google announced that it was shuttering its
two first-party studios in Los Angles and Montreal, shifting its
focus primarily on third-party games.
A post on ClassAction.org (via GamesIndustry.biz) detailed the
class-action lawsuit alleging that Google intentionally made
deceitful claims about the quality of its service in order to make
more money from consumers. Google used examples of games such as
Doom Eternal, Red Dead Redemption 2, and ongoing service game
Destiny 2, which demand expensive, high-performance PCs and gaming
consoles in order to reach the advertised 4K resolution at 60
frames per second (fps). Questions arose from media outlets and
Twitter about Stadia's performance for those who have low internet
connection speeds and Google doubled down on its claim that games
would run at 4K/60fps for those users.
Right before Stadia's launch, Google tweeted that its service would
perform at less than 4K/60fps for those with slower internet
connections. The suit says that this was done "quietly" and that it
was "an apparent effort to cover up the incorrect information that
would soon come to light." The post goes into further detail about
a previous lawsuit with similar allegations that Google settled,
sending $10 coupons to buy games on Stadia's store to "current and
former subscribers." The plaintiffs in that lawsuit tried to settle
with Google in private, yet Google "refused to provide Plaintiff
fair and reasonable legal fees" that were only "a small percentage
of the time that Plaintiff's counsel spent on this matter"
according to that suit.
The way Google advertised Stadia and the validity of its claims of
Stadia's performance have been under question since its
announcement. Other cloud-based gaming platforms launched after
Stadia, like Amazon's Luna platform and Microsoft's streaming
service tied to Xbox Game Pass (formerly named Project xCloud), but
performance is an issue that hangs over the heads of many video
game streaming platforms. Access to high-speed internet connections
are not widely available in the U.S., especially not in rural
areas. Many places where fast internet is available also have to
deal with caps on how much data can be used before extra charges
occur, so it may be a while before video game streaming can be
widely adopted.
In any case, Stadia users who were affected by this problem do not
need to do anything until the lawsuit is settled (if it does).
Afterwards, they would need to file a claim online to benefit from
the settlement. There is more information about how to file a claim
on the source's website. [GN]
HERC HOLDINGS: Denial of Relief from Judgment in Ramirez Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Third Circuit has
affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for relief from
judgment with respect to former Hertz officers in the class action
suit entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.,
et al.
In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation - In
November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez,
Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz
Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to
dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2014, the court granted
Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the
plaintiff to amend the complaint a second time.
In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period and made allegations that were
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint. In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz
Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff
to file a third amended complaint.
In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint which
included additional allegations, named additional then-current and
former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class
period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. In
November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff.
The court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended
complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed
on March 1, 2016. Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint with prejudice on
March 24, 2016. In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the
action with prejudice.
In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018,
oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.
On February 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the
judgment against it, and for leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. The proposed amended complaint would add allegations
related to the settlement with the SEC that, among other things,
ordered New Hertz to cease and desist from violating certain of the
federal securities laws and imposed a civil penalty of $16.0
million.
On February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion. On September 30, 2019, the court denied plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint.
On October 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On October 13, 2020,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the denial
of the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgement with respect to
the former officers.
The court did not rule on the appeal with respect to Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. due to the automatic stay created by Hertz Global
Holding, Inc.'s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry-specific
solution-based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.
HOWMET AEROSPACE: Bid to Dismiss Howard Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Howmet Aerospace Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., is
pending.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc.
and Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against Arconic Inc., three former Arconic Inc. executives,
several current and former directors, and certain banks.
Howard and Sullivan were subsequently consolidated and the lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws and seeking, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.
After the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in full,
the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and all
defendants have moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Howmet Aerospace Inc., (formerly known as Arconic Inc.) is an
aerospace company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company
manufactures components for jet engines, fasteners and titanium
structures for aerospace applications, and forged aluminum wheels
for heavy trucks. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
HYATT HOTELS: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the federal
district court in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959.
In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the
federal antitrust laws.
In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No.
5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws
arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and
seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
As part of the Texas federal court case, the Company filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs for unfair competition and
trademark infringement.
In October 2020, the Company resolved the claims and counterclaims
in the Texas lawsuit without either party admitting liability.
The Company disputes the allegations in the remaining Illinois
federal district court lawsuit and will defend its interests
vigorously.
Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate
outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operation, or
liquidity."
Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPACManagement and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
IMMUNOVANT INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Immunovant, Inc. (f/k/a Health
Sciences Acquisitions Corporation ("HSAC", "Immunovant" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: IMVT; HSACU; HSAC; and HSACW) in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Immunovant between October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) HSAC had performed
inadequate due diligence into Legacy Immunovant prior to the
Merger, and/or ignored or failed to disclose safety issues
associated with IMVT-1401; (2) IMVT-1401 was less safe than the
Company had led investors to believe, particularly with respect to
treating TED and WAIHA; (3) the foregoing foreseeably diminished
IMVT-1401’s prospects for regulatory approval, commercial
viability, and profitability; and (4) as a result, the Company’s
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On February 2, 2021, the Company issued a press release
"announc[ing] a voluntary pause of dosing in its ongoing clinical
trials for IMVT-1401." The Company disclosed that it "has become
aware of a physiological signal consisting of elevated total
cholesterol and LDL [low-density lipoproteins] levels in
IMVT-1401-treated patients" and "[o]ut of an abundance of caution,
the Company has decided to voluntarily pause dosing in ongoing
clinical studies in both TED and in [WAIHA], in order to inform
patients, investigators, and regulators as well as to modify the
monitoring program." On this news, the Company’s stock price fell
$18.22 per share, or 42.08%, to close at $25.08 per share on
February 2, 2021.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Immunovant
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
20, 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]
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Tchatchou Class Suit in Maryland Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16
2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that it
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Tchatchou v.
India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
8:18-cv-03396 (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland).
On November 2, 2018, company (IGC) shareholder Alde-Binet Tchatchou
instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
IGC, Ram Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi.
The plaintiff alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading statements
to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018, press release
entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink Space" and
related disclosures, in which IGC announced it had "executed a
distribution and partnership agreement" for the sugar-free energy
drink named Nitro G, as well as through related public statements.
The plaintiff has not publicly disclosed the amount of damages they
seek. On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions
were consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as
the lead case.
On October 11, 2019, Company and the Class Action Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated shareholder class action
litigation. On January 29, 2021, the court denied the motion to
dismiss. The Company's responsive pleading is due on February 15,
2021.
The Company denies any and all liability and intends to vigorously
defend the litigation.
India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several endpoints of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical
Cannabis-Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in
2005 and is based in Bethesda, Maryland.
IROBOT CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
iRobot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action suit before the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts remains pending.
On October 24, 2019, purported Company shareholder Miramar
Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its directors and officers, captioned
Miramar Firefighters' Pension Fund v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-09837.
The case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
A similar case captioned Campbell v. iRobot Corporation, et al.,
No. 1:19-cv-12483 was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On January 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the Miramar and
Campbell cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
Counsel.
On April 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder based on allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the impact of
competition and Section 301 tariffs on the Company's financial
performance, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
case.
A hearing was held on the Company's motion to dismiss on September
17, 2020, and the Company is currently awaiting a ruling on its
motion to dismiss.
iRobot Corporation manufactures robots that vacuum and wash floors
and perform battlefield reconnaissance and bomb disposal. The
Company markets its products to consumers through retailers, the
United States military, and other government agencies worldwide.
The company is based in Bedford, Massachusetts.
JUUL LABS: Charleston County Files E-Cigarette Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Parker at postandcourier.com reports that Charleston County
School District is joining a growing number of school systems and
other groups resorting to legal action to stop the spread of
e-cigarettes among teenagers.
Charleston district officials filed suit independently on Feb. 25,
accusing Juul Labs, which is part of Philip Morris USA's Altria
Group, of purposefully marketing a dangerous product to children
and seeking monetary relief.
Greenville County schools and Lexington One have already pursued
legal action against Juul. Richland One is considering the issue.
A separate class-action suit is being managed by the law firm
Berger Montague.
Drugwatch, a Florida-based consumer advocacy group, reports that
more than 750 class-action suits have been filed against Juul as of
July, with many claiming its marketing practices target minors.
Company officials have denied the allegations.
"We will continue to reset the vapor category in the U.S. and seek
to earn the trust of society by working cooperatively with
attorneys general, legislators, regulators, public health
officials, and other stakeholders to combat underage use and
transition adult smokers from combustible cigarettes," said Austin
Finan, a Juul spokesman.
"As part of that process, the company reduced its product
portfolio, halted television, print, and digital product
advertising and submitted a Premarket Tobacco Product Application
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration including comprehensive
scientific evidence to support the harm reduction potential of its
products and data-driven measures to address underage use," he
wrote. "Our customer base is the world's 1 billion adult smokers.
We will respond to the allegations through the appropriate legal
channels."
School officials and their attorneys say that vaping nicotine-laden
products is harmful to students and has created problems in the
schools.
Carl Solomon of Solomon Law Group, one of the firms representing
the Charleston school district, said this suit was filed
independently, and not as part of the class action, so the district
could determine how best to proceed should the effort founder or
fail. All such suits in South Carolina will be part of what's
called a "multi-district litigation" process which centralizes
legal discovery efforts, he said.
The lawsuit addresses a "public nuisance," Solomon said. Problems
caused by external agents that divert educators from their mission
and cost taxpayers money are being introduced into the school
environment and require "abatement."
The lawsuit seeks to stop Juul from marketing to students; to
require the company to be proactive about preventing teens from
using vaping products in the first place; and to force Juul to
provide funding to address education, addiction treatment,
monitoring and counseling -- all extra burdens the schools would
not have had to cope with if vaping among underaged teenagers was
not so rampant.
Appropriate financial compensation would be determined in the
courts, but Solomon said his calculations suggest that the
equivalent of one full-time employee would be needed in every
middle school and high school in the district.
In 2019 and into early 2020, federal regulators conducted a
sweeping investigation into the safety of various vaping products.
A February 2020 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
report found more than 2,800 people across the country were
hospitalized because of lung complications tied to e-cigarettes,
with 68 deaths.
Findings published by the FDA in April 2020 warned against using
any vape products containing vitamin E acetate or similar
additives.
"FDA and CDC recommend that people not use THC-containing
e-cigarette, or vaping, products, particularly from informal
sources like friends, or family, or in-person or online dealers,"
the agency said.
Although federal regulators were particularly concerned by vitamin
E acetate and other additives in THC-containing products, the FDA
said, "no one substance" was found in all samples they tested.
A 2019 survey of tobacco use among youths concluded that 22 percent
of South Carolina teens used e-cigarettes in the 30 days before the
survey was conducted.[GN]
JUUL LABS: Richland One Considers Joining E-Cigarette Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
postandcourier.com reports that another Midlands school district is
considering whether to add its name to the hundreds nationwide
suing e-cigarette manufacturer Juul.
Richland One trustees voted unanimously Feb. 23 to let
Superintendent Craig Witherspoon gather information on legal costs
and other details related to possibly joining a class-action
lawsuit. Trustees could authorize taking legal action against the
manufacturer next month.
If that happens, the 24,000-student district would join several
others in the Palmetto State suing Juul, including Greenville
County and Lexington One. Trustees in Richland County School
District Two considered such a move earlier this month, but
deadlocked on a 3-3 vote despite support from Superintendent Baron
Davis.
Plaintiffs have said Juul's products are harmful to students,
driving up health care costs and disciplinary problems within
school districts.
According to Drugwatch, a Florida-based consumer advocacy group,
758 class-action suits have been filed against Juul as of July,
with many claiming its marketing practices target minors. Company
officials have denied the allegations.
But the health effects of e-cigarette consumption are clear, the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported.
A February 2020 agency report found more than 2,800 people across
the country were hospitalized because of lung complications tied to
e-cigarettes, with 68 deaths. And a 2019 survey of youth tobacco
use concluded that 22 percent of South Carolina teens used
e-cigarettes in the past 30 days.
Juul launched an assembly plant in Lexington County in May 2019 to
make e-cigarettes, a project that was expected to employ about 500
people. But the company closed it down in November, citing poor
market conditions among strong political pushback.
The closure also affected Flex, an international electronics
manufacturer that was a subcontractor to the vaping company with a
West Columbia site next to the Juul plant near the Columbia
Metropolitan Airport. Before the Juul deal, Flex had about 230
full-time employees producing products for other industries. [GN]
KEYBANK N.A.: Final Approval of Parties' Settlement Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL SHANAHAN, LEVORA
ADDISON, MICHAEL ALAGICH, JAMIE SEROW, ALEJANDRO SOLANO, and LAURIE
KIELBANIA, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, v. KEYBANK, N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-02477-PAB (N.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. Granting final certification of the Class Members, as
defined in the Parties' Settlement Agreement, for
settlement purposes;
2. Granting final approval of the Parties' Settlement with
respect to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 New York, Pennsylvania,
Connecticut, Oregon and Massachusetts Classes' (Class
Members) claims;
3. Granting final approval of the Parties' Settlement with
respect to the FLSA Putative Collective Action Members'
claims;
4. Granting approval of the proposed Notices of Final
Settlement Approval for Class Members and Putative
Collective Action Members;
5. Granting approval of the request for Service Awards of
$10,000 each to the Plaintiffs Daniel Shanahan, LeVora
Addison, Michael Alagich, Jamie Serow, Alejandro Solano,
and Laurie Kielbania, and Opt-in Plaintiffs Ronald Gall,
Catherine Johnson, Brenda Meehan, and Ernesto Small;
6. Granting approval to the National Employment Law Project
as the cy pres recipient;
7. Granting approval of Class Counsel's request for one-third
of the Global Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees and $XX
in out-of-pocket litigation costs;
8. Granting Approval of the $42,000 payment to A.B. Data,
Ltd. for fees and costs of settlement administration.
9. Dismissing the case with prejudice and directing the Clerk
of the Court to enter the Final Order and Judgment
immediately; and
10. Retaining jurisdiction over the construction,
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the
Settlement and over the administration of settlement
benefits.
KeyBank, the primary subsidiary of KeyCorp, is a regional bank
headquartered in Cleveland and is the only major bank based in
Cleveland.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 18, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NAWW0j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:
Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
jswidler@swartz-legal.com
- and -
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Justin Swartz, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25 th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
KNM HOLDINGS: McDaniel Sues Over Improper Payment of Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEISHIA McDANIEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KNM HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a CHURCH'S
CHICKEN, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00599 (S.D. Tex., February 24,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees
overtime compensation at the rates required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in October 2018.
KNM Holdings, LLC, doing business as Church's Chicken, is a
restaurant operator, with its headquarters and principal place of
business in Harris County, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Putative Class Suit in California Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
KushCo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 18, 2021, that
on February 18, 2021, KushCo Holdings, Inc. issued a press release
announcing that a putative shareholder class action filed on April
30, 2019, in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, Case No. 8:19-cv-00798-JLS-KES, against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, has been dismissed in
its entirety with prejudice.
A copy of the press release is available at
https://bit.ly/3q2uPEr.
KushCo Holdings, Inc. primarily engages in the wholesale
distribution of packaging supplies in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. The company offers pop-top bottles;
child resistant exit, paper exit, and foil barrier bags; tubes; and
polystyrene, silicone-lined polystyrene or glass containers. The
company was formerly known as Kush Bottles, Inc. and changed its
name to KushCo Holdings, Inc. in September 2018. KushCo Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Garden Grove,
California.
MATERION CORP: Facing Lucyk Purported Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Materion Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and its
subsidiary is facing a purported collective and class action suit
entitled, Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc., et. al.
On October 14, 2020 Garett Lucyk, et al. v. Materion Brush Inc.,
et. al., case number 20CV0234, a wage and hour purported collective
and class action, was filed in the Northern District of Ohio
against the Company and its subsidiary, Materion Brush Inc.
Plaintiff, a former hourly production employee at the Company's
Elmore, Ohio facility, alleges that he and other similarly situated
employees nationwide are not paid for all time they spend donning
and doffing personal protective equipment in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.
Plaintiff also alleges the Company failed to include all
remuneration he and others received for premium and bonus pay when
computing overtime pay.
Materion said, "The case is currently in the preliminary stages.
The Company believes that it has substantive defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this suit."
Materion Corporation, through its subsidiaries, produces and
supplies high-performance engineered materials. The Company
provides beryllium, beryllium alloys, and electronic products, as
well as engineered material systems. Materion has manufacturing
facilities, service and distribution centers, and research
facilities in the United States and internationally. The company is
based in Mayfield Heights, Ohio.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Franchise Owners Allege Anti-Black Racism Protest
------------------------------------------------------------------
Naomi Waxman at chicago.eater.com reports that groups gathered
outside McDonald's world headquarters in West Loop to protest
claims of predatory and discriminatory practices directed toward
Black franchisees. It's the start of a 90-day picketing campaign to
challenge allegedly racist tactics, according to the Sun-Times.
The protests come nearly five months after Memphis, Tennessee
franchisees James and Darrell Byrd filed a class-action suit
against McDonalds. The brothers say the company unjustly shuttered
their restaurants after deeming them to be "of no value." The Byrds
allege in their lawsuit that McDonald's places Black operators in
economically underserved communities, thus insuring higher costs
for security and insurance. The Byrds say other Black franchisees
face similar treatment.
A McDonald's franchisee for more than 30 years, James Byrd once
operated 10 locations, but now has only two. Darrell, once the
owner of four locations, now has two after 22 years with the
company. White franchisees, the lawsuit claims, aren't subjected to
the same pressures. They point to an alleged $900,000 discrepancy
in cash flow, with white owners bringing in $2.9 million annually
versus the $2 million seen by Black owners. Plaintiffs have also
claims that in the late 1990s there were about 377 Black
franchisees across the country, but in 2021, only 186 remain.
The Golden Arches acknowledged the protests in a statement sent to
the Sun-Times, saying it "must go further and remain focused on
serious action to accelerate meaningful and overdue societal
change."
The Byrds are the latest in a string of plaintiffs to bring suits
against McDonald's alleging anti-Black discrimination: more than a
year ago, two former senior executives filed a lawsuit claiming the
company demoted or forced out Black leadership and Black
franchisees in a "continuing pattern and practice of intentional
race discrimination that should outrage everyone."
In September, 27 Chicago-based franchisees filed a separate
class-action suit claiming racism on the part of McDonald's. The
group has since grown to include 80 plaintiffs, according to the
Chicago Crusader.
McDonald's moved in 2018 from suburban Oak Brook to its new
headquarters along Randolph Restaurant Row. Many workers remain
away from the office during the pandemic, which was one of the
reasons Politan Row, the food hall in the same building, elected to
hibernate and pause on-premise dining. McDonald's workers made up a
large segment of the hall's customer base. [GN]
MDL 2804: Prescription Opioids Product Row Moved to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over prescription opioids,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one action each from the
Northern District of Illinois, Northern District of Mississippi,
Eastern District of Missouri, Northern District of Oklahoma and the
four from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Northern
District of Ohio and assigning them to Judge Dan A. Polster for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
These actions involve common questions of fact with the actions
previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, involving allegations that
Defendants' alleged improper marketing and distribution of various
prescription opiate medications into states, cities and towns
across the country.
Despite some variances among the action, the panel indicated that
all share the fact that the manufacturer and distributor
defendants' allegedly knew of the conduct regarding the diversion
of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers'
allegedly improper marketing of the drugs.
Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3rbvGDR.
MDL 2873: AFFF Product Liability Suits Transferred to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
In case, "In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 2873, Chairperson Karen K. Caldwell of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has entered an
order transferring one action pending each in the Northern District
of California, Western District of Michigan and the Eastern
District of Missouri to the District of South Carolina and assigned
to Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Actions involve allegations that aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
used at airports, military bases, or other locations to extinguish
liquid fuel fires caused the release of perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into local groundwater
and contaminated drinking water supplies.
The panel finds that the said actions share factual questions
concerning the use and storage of AFFFs, the toxicity of PFAS and
the effects of these substances on human health and these
substances' chemical properties and propensity to migrate in
groundwater supplies.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 4, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3kKJUcI.
MDL 2875: Hypertension Meds Transfer Request Denied
---------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over hypertension medications
Valsartan, Losartan and Irbesartan (C.A. No. 8:20-02409, M.D.
Fla.), Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the proposed transfer of
Hernandez v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. to the District of New Jersey for
inclusion in MDL No. 2875 as moved by Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.
and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
The panel says the Hernandez action does not share a common factual
core with the actions in the MDL sufficient to support transfer.
Actions in this MDL allege presence of nitrosamine impurities in
the valsartan products and associated health risks provided the
common factual core warranting centralization, specifically, that
these impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage.
The panel explains that, unlike the actions in MDL No. 2875,
Hernandez does not allege that the losartan ingested by the
decedent contained nitrosamine impurities or an injury allegedly
linked to nitrosamines. Instead, plaintiff alleges that the
decedent suffered respiratory shock and died shortly after
ingesting losartan for the first time and that the boxed warnings
on the product failed to provide adequate warning of these risks.
The Hernandez complaint has no express or implied reference to the
presence of impurities of any kind in the losartan ingested by
decedent or suggest that her injuries were linked to the presence
of nitrosamines. Plaintiff's briefing before the panel further
confirms that her action is unrelated to the presence of
nitrosamines in losartan. Although defendants contend that there
could be overlapping discovery as to the regulatory background of
losartan, the panel finds those similarities insufficient to
justify transfer, given that the nature of the alleged defect in
Hernandez is categorically different from the defects alleged in
the MDL.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3r4cVlT.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: C300 Fuel Smell Leads to Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Mercedes C300 fuel smell has led
to a class action lawsuit that alleges 2015-2019 (W205) C-Class
vehicles have defects that cause fuel leaks and odors.
According to the Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit, fuel can leak
into the engine compartment from fuel line connections to the fuel
pump at the rear of the engine compartment. Mercedes C300 and other
C-Class vehicle occupants complain of strong fuel smells caused by
the fuel leaks.
California plaintiff Nicholas Rosen purchased a certified pre-owned
2016 Mercedes-Benz C300 from a Mercedes dealership in December
2018.
The plaintiff says he was provided a certified pre-owned warranty
which included one additional year of coverage with no mileage
limitations. In addition, Rosen says he purchased an additional
2-year warranty which covers his C300 for two years from the time
the certified pre-owned warranty ended.
It's a vehicle the plaintiff still owns.
The Mercedes C300 fuel smell lawsuit alleges the plaintiff noticed
a fuel odor in the vehicle about 4,000 to 5,000 miles after the new
vehicle warranty expired.
He says he contacted the Mercedes-Benz dealership and requested the
vehicle be repaired under warranty. He was allegedly told his
warranty had expired but he could bring in his C300 for a diagnosis
and pay out-of-pocket for the evaluation.
In March 2020, the plaintiff took his Mercedes C300 to the dealer
to have the fuel leak repaired, and the service report says,
"insulation smells slightly of fuel," and continued:
"[S]prayed leak trace on and around high pressure pump. Started
vehicle, did not notice any obvious leaking. Removed rear seat.
Removed service cover for fuel filter. No noticeable leaks or
smells. Will need to let vehicle cool down and will recheck
later."
The dealer "checked leak in the morning" of the next day and
allegedly found "fuel leaking from low fuel pressure line to high
pressure pump. Recommend replacing, not covered under warranty."
The Mercedes class action says the repair wouldn't be covered under
warranty because the fuel leak was due to a "wear item."
Plaintiff Rosen said the work had to be done and he was charged
nearly $550 for technicians to install three parts: "(1) No.
274-070-35-00 fuel hose; and (2) two No. 006-997-18-90 loom ties."
The plaintiff says none of this would have occurred if the Mercedes
C-Class high-pressure fuel pump connectors didn't leak. The lawsuit
alleges the problem is caused by defective fuel hoses and/or the
"use of incorrect manufacturing processes to affix the clamps as
needed at the connection points, and/or uses improper materials."
The automaker also allegedly conceals how the C-Class fuel systems
are allegedly defective even though Mercedes-Benz knows about C300
customer complaints, warranty reports and other data.
"Intermittent fuel leak. Real bad gas smell in cabin coming through
the vents. Driver side, in back, down between the engine and body.
The fuel lines are pressurized, so it might only leak when the
pressure builds up." — Mercedes-Benz C300 owner
"Gas leak in fuel line, while receiving an oil change from a
licensed mechanic, he brought to my attention that, there was fuel
leaking from the fuel line and showed (fuel line soaked with
gasoline directly under the engine), I also noticed that when using
the ac the strong smell of gasoline comes through the vents." —
Mercedes-Benz C300 owner
The plaintiff claims the fuel smells and costly repairs decrease
the values of the Mercedes C-Class vehicles, an alleged problem the
automaker apparently has been unable to repair.
The Mercedes-Benz fuel smell class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division: Rosen, et al., vs. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC, and
Sauder Schelkopf. [GN]
MINDLANCE INC: Lopez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROCIO LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MINDLANCE INC.; THALES AVIONICS, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01177684 CU
OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on February 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00366 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.
Mindlance Inc. is a staffing services company with its principal
place of business in Union, New Jersey.
Thales Avionics, Inc. is an aerospace products and parts
manufacturing firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amber M. Spataro, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
One Newark Center
8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 848-4700
Facsimile: (973) 643-5626
E-mail: aspataro@littler.com
- and –
Tracy R. Williams, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 705-3000
Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
E-mail: trwilliams@littler.com
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Turnage Bid to File Revised Complaint Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Power Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court denied
further motions by the plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to
file a revised second amended complaint.
In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a
putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the
three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror Construction work in progress (CWIP) rate premised
upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction
costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into
service.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate. The plaintiffs allege that
the initial approval process, and the amount approved, were
improper. They also allege that Mississippi Power underpaid
customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund process by applying
an incorrect interest rate.
The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their
putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs.
In response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each
filing a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in March 2019. The amended complaint included four
additional plaintiffs and additional claims for gross negligence,
reckless conduct, and intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and
the Mississippi PSC each filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which occurred on May 26, 2020 and March 27, 2020,
respectively.
Also on March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
name the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi
Development Authority, and Southern Company as additional
defendants and add a cause of action against all defendants based
on a dormant commerce clause theory under the U.S. Constitution.
On July 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as
the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several
additional state law claims based on the allegation that
Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of
interest applicable to refunds.
On November 10, 2020, the court denied each of the plaintiffs'
pending motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi
Power.
On January 22, 2021, the court denied further motions by the
plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second
amended complaint.
An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact
on Mississippi Power's financial statements.
Mississippi Power Company, headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi,
is a regulated utility subsidiary of The Souterhern Company, a
utility holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP remind investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
MultiPlan Corporation ("MultiPlan" or the "Company") f/k/a
Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") (NYSE: MPLN[/url])
securities from July 12, 2020 through November 10, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 26, 2021 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan,
a healthcare cost specialist. In July 2020, Churchill III announced
that it had entered into a preliminary agreement, subject to
shareholder approval, to merge with MultiPlan (the "Merger").
MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics end-to-end cost
management solutions provider to the U.S. healthcare industry. The
MultiPlan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business,
operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.
On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger
- Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years.
As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted approximately 20%, or $1.72 per share, to close at $7.01
per share on November 11, 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Multiplan securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrodof Kirby McInerney LLPat 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form[/url], to discuss your rights or interests with respect to
these matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLPis a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kmllp.com[/url].
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 26, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against MultiPlan Corporation
f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill") (NYSE: MPLN), if
they purchased the Company's securities between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or were
holders of Churchill Class A common stock entitled to vote on
Churchill's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and
its consolidated subsidiaries completed in October 2020. This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of MultiPlan f/k/a Churchill Capital
Corp. III or held Churchill Class A common stock as above and would
like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect
you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may,
without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mpln/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by April 26, 2021.
About the Lawsuit
MultiPlan f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III and certain of its
executives are charged with failing to disclose material
information in connection with the merger and during the Class
Period, violating federal securities laws.
On July 12, 2020, Churchill announced that it had entered into an
agreement to merge with MultiPlan, subject to approval by Churchill
stockholders, which subsequently was completed and closed on
October 8, 2020. On November 11, 2020, Muddy Waters issued a
scathing report on Churchill III alleging that MultiPlan was in the
process of losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was
estimated to cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of
its levered free cash flow within two years, that MultiPlan had
obscured its deteriorating financial position in presentations to
investors, and other negative revelations.
On this news, shares of Churchill plummeted.
The case is Srock v. MultiPlan Corporation, No. 21-cv-01640.
About Kahn Swick
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana
Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's
premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a
variety of clients – including public institutional investors,
hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to
recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California
and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contacts
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850 [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Schall Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against MultiPlan
Corporation ("MultiPlan" or "the Company") f/k/a Churchill Capital
Corp. III ("Churchill III" or the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN) for
violations of the securities laws
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 12,
2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and all
holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on
Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp.
and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan")
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger") are encouraged to
contact the firm before April 26, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2OkYyLl to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of
dollars in sales to NaviGuard, a competitor built by one of its
largest customers. NaviGuard threatened 35% of the Company's sales
and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022. The sales decline
leading up to the Merger was not caused by "idiosyncratic" customer
behaviors, but by deterioration in demand and increased
competition. In fact, the Company was set to face continued
troubles including deteriorating pricing dynamics following the
Merger. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about MultiPlan, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Announces Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LARRY ENRIQUEZ v. NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS PLC, et al.
Case No. 1:19-cv-04183-VM
Honorable Victor Marrero
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS PLC'S ("NABRIVA") COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM JANUARY 4, 2019, THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"CLASS").
Excluded from the Class are Defendants; the officers, directors,
and affiliates of Nabriva; any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest; and immediate family members, legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the
above.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held
on May 14, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Victor Marrero
in Courtroom 15B of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY
10007, for the purpose of determining, among other things: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the
Defendants for $3,000,000 in cash should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(3) whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether the
application for a reimbursement award to Lead Plaintiff should be
approved; (5) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the
assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject
matter of the Action; and (6) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court.
If you purchased or acquired Nabriva common stock between January
4, 2019, and April 30, 2019, your rights may be affected by the
Settlement of this Action, including the release and extinguishment
of claims you may possess relating to your ownership of Nabriva
common stock. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and
a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain
copies by writing to the Settlement Administrator at: Nabriva
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173091,
Milwaukee, WI 53217, www.nabrivasecuritieslitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
April 30, 2021, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As
further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of
Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later than April
30, 2021. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
attorney's fees and expenses, or Lead Plaintiff's reimbursement
award must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures
set forth in the Notice, no later than April 30, 2021.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Co-Lead Counsel: Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, 10 South LaSalle
Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603, Telephone: (312) 377-1181 or
Corey D. Holzer, Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 211 Perimeter Center
Parkway, Suite 1010, Atlanta, GA 30346, Telephone: (770) 392-0090.
INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT,
THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.
Dated: February 26, 2021
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
Pomerantz LLP
10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Holzer & Holzer, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346 [GN]
NETGEAR INC: Final Approval Hearing on Settlement Set for March 11
------------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the hearing on the final
approval of the settlement in John Pham v. Arlo Technologies, Inc.,
NETGEAR Inc., et al., and other related actions is scheduled for
March 11, 2021.
On January 9, 2019 and January 10, 2019, February 1, 2019 and
February 8, 2019, the Company was sued in four separate securities
class action suits in Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, along with Arlo Technologies, individuals, and underwriters
involved in the spin-off of Arlo.
Two more similar state actions have been filed against Arlo
Technologies Inc. et al.. In total, six putative class action
complaints have now been filed in California state court in Santa
Clara County. The Company is named as a defendant in five of the
six lawsuits.
The complaints generally allege that Arlo's IPO materials contained
false and misleading statements, hiding problems with Arlo' Ultra
product. These claims are styled as violations of Sections 11,
12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
There is also a putative class action pending in federal court in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs, making very similar claims. The Company is not
presently named in the federal action. Defendants filed motions to
stay the state court actions in deference to the federal court
action.
The court held a hearing on April 26, 2019 to consider whether to
consolidate the six lawsuits and appoint a "lead plaintiff and
another hearing on May 31, 2019 to consider defendants' motions to
stay the state court cases. On June 21, 2019, the California state
court judge granted the Company's motion to stay the state court
case pending the outcome of the federal case. The case will now
proceed only in federal court.
On August 6, 2019, all the defendants, including NETGEAR, filed a
motion to dismiss the federal court action. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition brief on September 6, 2019 and defendants filed a reply
on October 4, 2019. The state court action remains stayed pending
the outcome of the federal action.
On November 18, 2019, the parties participated in mediation, but
did not settle the case. On December 5, 2019, the court held a
hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on December 19,
2019, granted that motion as to all counts, with leave to amend. On
February 14, 2020, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation to
stay proceedings to permit filing of a motion for preliminary
approval for classwide settlement.
On June 11, 2020, the Parties signed the Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement. On June 12, 2020, lead attorney for plaintiffs filed a
motion with the Court for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action
Settlement. In September 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the
Parties' settlement.
In January 2021, Company received notice that one shareholder filed
an objection to the settlement with the Court for its consideration
in the final approval.
Subject to final approval of the settlement by the Court at a
hearing currently scheduled for March 11, 2021, there will be no
material financial impact on the Company.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
NETGEAR, Inc. designs, develops and markets networking products for
home users and small businesses worldwide. The Company, based in
Santa Clara, Calif., was founded in 1996.
NEWMONT CORP: Shareholder Class Suit in Ontario Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Newmont Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action pending before the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
On October 28, 2016 and February 14, 2017, separate proposed class
actions were commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario) against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers.
Both statement of claims alleged common law negligent
misrepresentation in Goldcorp, Inc.'s public disclosure concerning
the Peñasquito mine and also pleaded an intention to seek leave
from the Court to proceed with an allegation of statutory
misrepresentation pursuant to the secondary market civil liability
provisions under the Securities Act (Ontario).
By a consent order, the latter lawsuit proceeded, and the former
action has been stayed.
The active lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of persons who
acquired Goldcorp Inc.'s securities in the secondary market during
an alleged class period from October 30, 2014 to August 23, 2016.
An amended complaint has been filed in the active lawsuit, which
removes the individual defendants, and requests leave of the Court
to pursue only the statutory cause of action.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter, but cannot
reasonably predict the outcome.
Newmont Corporation engages in the production and exploration of
gold, copper, silver, zinc, and lead. The Company has operations
and/or assets in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Dominican
Republic, Peru, Suriname, Argentina, Chile, Australia, and Ghana.
Newmont Corporation was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in
Greenwood Village, Colorado.
NEXTGEN ACQUISITION: Juan Monteverde Probes on Possible Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &
Associates PC, a national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018
and 2019 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating NextGen Acquisition Corp. ("NGAC" or the "Company")
(NGAC) relating to its proposed merger with Xos, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, NGAC will acquire Xos through a reverse
merger, with Xos emerging as a publicly traded company.
The investigation focuses on whether NextGen Acquisition Corp. and
its Board of Directors violated securities laws and/or breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company by 1) failing to conduct a
fair process, and 2) whether the transaction is properly valued.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nextgen-acquisition-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
About Monteverde & Associates PC
We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018 and 2019 ISS Securities Class Action Services
Report. Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers
& Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2019 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.
If you own common stock in NextGen Acquisition Corp. and wish to
obtain additional information and protect your investments free of
charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde,
Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by
telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
NTT DATA: 2nd Cir. Rules on Denial of Rehearing in Mandala Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE MANDALA, CHARLES BARNETT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
NTT DATA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-2308-cv (2d Cir.),
Circuit Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
issued their opinions concurring in and dissenting from the denial
of petition for rehearing en banc.
Circuit Judges Richard J. Sullivan and William J. Nardini, joined
by Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston, and Circuit Judges Jose A.
Cabranes and Michael H. Park concur by opinion in the denial of
rehearing en banc.
Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, joined by Circuit Judges Denny
Chin, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., and Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges,
dissents by opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Circuit Judge Denny Chin, joined by Circuit Judges Rosemary S.
Pooler, Robert A. Katzmann, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., and Susan L.
Carney, dissents by opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Circuit Judge Raymond J. Lohier, Jr., joined by Circuit Judge
Rosemary S. Pooler, Robert A. Katzmann, Denny Chin, and Susan L.
Carney, dissents by opinion from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Circuit Judges Sullivan and Nardini opine that they do not take
issue with the dissents' descriptions of the significance of Title
VII. Indeed, just the opposite, they say. But even on matters of
great importance, they explain that they are required to apply the
pleading standards as set forth by the Supreme Court and the Court,
and under those standards, they find the Plaintiffs' complaint
falls short.
Citing See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002),
they say, for decades, Title VII claims--just like all other
claims--were subject to a plaintiff-friendly notice pleading
standard. That changed with the Supreme Court's announcement of
the plausibility pleading standard in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 556 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). For better or for worse, that standard made
it harder for all plaintiffs, not just Title VII plaintiffs, to
state a claim for relief. Although one can surely debate the
merits of this approach, neither the Supreme Court nor the Court
has ever suggested that Title VII claims are somehow exempt from
the plausibility standard. The panel majority opinion, they say,
simply held the Plaintiffs to that burden and agreed with the
district court that they had failed to meet it in this particular
case. Accordingly, they concur in the order denying rehearing en
banc.
Judge Pooler joins fully in Judge Chin's thorough and compelling
dissent from the order denying rehearing en banc. She writes
separately to emphasize two key issues. First, she finds the panel
opinion takes the wrong approach to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6)'s plausibility standards by making inferences favoring the
Defendants while declining to make obvious inferences for the
Plaintiffs that would rebut the central basis of the panel
majority's reasoning. Second, she says they take this flawed
approach in the context of a Title VII lawsuit, undercutting one of
the most important pieces of legislation in the country's history.
According to Judge Pooler, the principal flaw in the panel opinion
is its inversion of the traditional standard applied to pleadings
at the motion to dismiss stage. If the panel majority felt
comfortable making its own assumptions regarding how education
levels interacted with arrest and conviction rates, Judge Pooler
finds it unclear why they did not feel comfortable making the
equally obvious assumption that racial gaps remain as education
levels increase. She sees no valid principle that permits the
Court to draw one inference but not the other, particularly at the
motion to dismiss stage, all reasonable inferences must be drawn to
favor the Plaintiffs. Their precedent clearly required the panel
majority to either make both assumptions or neither, but the
majority elected instead to employ its own standards to dismiss the
case.
In conclusion, Judge Pooler opines that the flaws in the panel
opinion are particularly important for the Court to remedy because
they undercut Title VII. By employing an eccentric and heightened
pleading standard in the case, and importing facts from outside the
record, she says the panel majority and concurrence suggest the
Court will find ways to shut the door on litigants seeking to
vindicate their civil rights. That is not the message they should
send to litigants, especially in these troubled times.
Judge Chin opines that denying the petition for rehearing en banc,
the Court ignores a question of exceptional importance: the adverse
impact of an absolute convictions bar on individuals seeking
employment--an impact disproportionately borne by African
Americans. He says the heightened pleading standard created by the
panel majority for disparate impact cases brought pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Senct 2000e et seq.,
presents a risk that many meritorious civil rights cases will not
be reached on the merits. This is particularly troubling now in
light of the implications for the struggle for racial equality that
Title VII reflects, as the nation continues to address the issue of
systemic racism.
In conclusion, Judge Chin holds that the Court has long recognized
the importance of Title VII and the rights it protects. By denying
the petition for rehearing en banc, it is now leaving in place a
decision that will become, he is afraid, a dangerous precedent, as
it will permit courts to dismiss what may be meritorious disparate
impact civil rights claims because the Plaintiffs, who may be
working "from an informational disadvantage," are not able to
provide "granular data" that is only in the possession of the
employer, for an applicant pool that has not yet been defined,
based on speculation that general statistics are irrelevant because
the Plaintiffs do not account for all purportedly "confounding
variables," all at the pleadings stage of a lawsuit. The Judge
opines that they should rehear the case en banc, vacate the
judgment, and remand for the Plaintiffs to proceed with their
claims.
Finally, although he has very rarely voted to proceed in banc, for
the reasons expressed by Judge Chin and Judge Pooler in their
opinions dissenting from the denial of rehearing in banc, Judge
Lohier dissents. The majority suggests that the case is about no
more than applying the plausibility pleading standard set by Iqbal
and Twombly to disparate impact cases under Title VII, and that
substantive rights under Title VII itself remain unaffected. But,
he opines that a pleading is the key to the courthouse door. When,
as in the case, the standard for pleadings is raised arbitrarily
high or subjected almost entirely to the uneven vagaries of
judicial "experience" and "common sense," then those substantive
rights that reside just behind the door wither and die. He marks
the panel majority's decision as one that will need to be revisited
and corrected by them, or by Congress, in the future.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/6svnbb43 from Leagle.com.
Ossai Miazad -- om@outtengolden.com -- Lewis M. Steel --
ls@outtengolden.com -- Christopher M. McNerney --
cmcnerney@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden LLP, in New York
City; Rachel Bien, Outten & Golden LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Sherrilyn
A. Ifill, Janai S. Nelson, Samuel Spital, Rachel M. Kleinman, NAACP
Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., in New York City; Catherine
Meza, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., in Washington,
D.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Jacqueline Phipps Polito -- jpolito@littler.com -- Jessica F.
Pizzutelli -- jpizzutelli@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., in
New York City, ForDefendant-Appellee.
NURTURE INC: Faces Stewart Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc. The
case is captioned as Nicole Stewart, et al., v. Nurture, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01217-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2021).
The case arises from fraud-related claims and is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.
The Defendant is an organic baby and toddler food company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Milton Liskow, Esq.
Janine Lee Pollack, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036-5803
Telephone: (212) 899-1761
E-mail: mliskow@calcaterrapollack.com
jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
PBF ENERGY: Parties' Motions in Goldstein Suit Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court issued an Order
taking the company's motion for Limited Extension of Discovery
Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint under submission pending additional discovery and
briefing related to plaintiff Hany Youssef and whether a new class
representative should be substituted.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., PBF LLC, PBF Energy Inc., and the company's
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region and Torrance Refining and the
manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil
were named as defendants in a class action and representative
action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas,
Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the
ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any
liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.
On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
court took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the court
issued an order denying class certification.
On April 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. On May 3,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District Court for
Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On May 22,
2019, the judge granted plaintiffs' motion.
The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and
named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
On February 5, 2021, the company's motion for Limited Extension of
Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint were heard by the court.
On February 9, 2021, the court issued an Order taking both motions
under submission pending additional discovery and briefing related
to plaintiff Youssef and whether a new class representative should
be substituted. The Court has also ordered that the rebuttal expert
disclosure deadline, the expert discovery cut-off, the motion
hearing cut-off, and all other case deadlines be stayed pending the
court's decision as to whether the case can proceed with a new
class representative and whether defendants will be permitted to
conduct additional soil vapor sampling in the ground subclass area.
Trial was previously scheduled to commence on July 27, 2021.
PBF Energy said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows."
PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PENUMBRA INC: Johnson Fistel Reminds of March 16 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra"
or the "Company") (NYSE: PEN). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Penumbra between August 3, 2020 and
December 15, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
move the Court no later than March 16, 2021.
[click https://bit.ly/3qcIJUp to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
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. 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. In mid-2020,
concerns about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety began to emerge.
Despite these concerns, Penumbra repeatedly assured investors
during the Class Period that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely
safe," "exactly what we hoped it would be," and "not a product that
has any possibility of needing to be recalled." The Company further
assured investors that it was taking all necessary steps to protect
patients.
As alleged in the Class Action Complaint, these statements and
other statements that Defendants made during the Class Period were
materially false and misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made 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. Among other things,
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 Jet 7
Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had 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.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures that caused
Penumbra's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial
losses. On September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial
Journalism, an independent non-profit news outlet, published an
article raising serious issues about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety
profile, citing twelve deaths reported to the FDA that occurred
after a surgeon injected an iodine contrast dye into the Jet 7 Xtra
Flex, and claiming that warnings against using the product with
contrast dye and non-Penumbra products did little to address the
Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety issues.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Penumbra class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Penumbra
class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential
future recovery of the Penumbra class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in
learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.
Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Create Subclass in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson at Reuters reports that a federal judge has refused
to create a California subclass within a nationwide proposed class
action accusing Pfizer Inc of obtaining a fraudulent patent and
conspiring with generic drugmaker Ranbaxy Inc to delay sales of
generic versions of its cholesterol drug Lipitor.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan in New Jersey on Friday rejected
an argument by two California residents who bought Lipitor that
they needed a separate class because the lead plaintiffs,
municipalities and health plans, were third-party payors that did
not take the drug themselves and so lacked standing to bring claims
under California's Cartwright Act, an antitrust law. [GN]
PHENIXFIN CORP: Facing Kahn Purported Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
PhenixFIN Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company is
facing a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kahn v.
PhenixFIN Corporation, et al.
On or about January 28, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit,
captioned Kahn v. PhenixFIN Corporation, et al., was filed against
the Company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware.
Plaintiffs allege that a provision in the Company's bylaws, which
provides that directors may be removed from office for cause by the
affirmative vote of 75% of capital stock entitled to vote, is
inconsistent with provisions of the Delaware General Corporate Law,
which plaintiffs allege would permit removal for cause by a simple
majority of capital stock entitled to vote.
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the bylaw provision is
invalid and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing it, as well as
a reasonable allowance of attorneys' fee.
Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.
PhenixFIN Corporation is a non-diversified closed-end management
investment company that operates as a business development company.
The Company's investment objective is to generate current income
and capital appreciation, primarily through investments in
privately negotiated debt and equity securities of middle market
companies.
PHENIXFIN CORP: Revised Agreement Reached in Solomon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
PhenixFIN Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the parties Royce
Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio
v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane
Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley
LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley
Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc.,
Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100 and the Objectors reached
a revised agreement in principle.
Medley LLC, the Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube
were named as defendants, along with other various parties, in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned as Royce Solomon, Jodi
Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna Lomaglio v. American Web
Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol
Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II, LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing Service, Inc., Middlemarch
Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on December 15, 2017, amended
on March 9, 2018, and amended a second time on February 15, 2019,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Newport News Division, as Case No. 4:17-cv-145.
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company were also named as
defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class
action lawsuit captioned George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark
Curry, American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed
February 13, 2018, in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, as Case No. 3:18-cv-100.
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company were also named as
defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class
action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball,
Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web
Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Newport
News Division, as Case No. 4:18-cv-101.
Medley Opportunity Fund II LP was also named as a defendant, along
with various other parties, in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Christina Williams and Michael Stermel v. Red Stone, Inc.
(as successor in interest to MacFarlane Group, Inc.), Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, Mark Curry, Brian McGowan, Vincent Ney, and
John Doe entities and individuals, filed June 29, 2018 and amended
July 26, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, as Case No. 2:18-cv-2747.
The Company and Medley Opportunity Fund II, LP were also named as
defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class
action lawsuit captioned Charles McDaniel v. American Web Loan,
Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Opportunity Fund II, LP, and Red Stone, Inc., filed on August 7,
2020 and amended on October 22, 2020 in the First Judicial Circuit
of Ohio County, West Virginia, Case No. 20-C-169, which case was
then removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia on December 15, 2020.
The plaintiffs in the Class Action Complaints filed their putative
class actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of
the alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.
The claims against Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, the
Company, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube,
and Seth Taube (in Class Action 1, as amended); Medley Opportunity
Fund II LP and Medley Capital Corporation (in Class Action 2 and
Class Action 3); Medley Opportunity Fund II LP (in the Pennsylvania
Class Action); and Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company
(in the West Virginia Class Action), allege that those defendants
in each respective action exercised control over, or improperly
derived income from, and/or obtained an improper interest in,
American Web Loan's payday lending activities as a result of a loan
to American Web Loan.
The loan was made by Medley Opportunity Fund II LP in 2011.
American Web Loan repaid the loan from Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP in full in February of 2015, more than 1 year and 10 months
prior to any of the loans allegedly made by American Web Loan to
the alleged class plaintiff representatives in Class Action 1. In
Class Action 2, the alleged class plaintiff representatives had not
alleged when they received any loans from American Web Loan.
In Class Action 3, the alleged class plaintiff representatives
claim to have received loans from American Web Loan at various
times from February 2015 through April 2018. In the Pennsylvania
Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representatives claim to
have received loans from American Web Loan in 2017. In the West
Virginia Class Action, the alleged class plaintiff representative
claims to have received a loan from American Web Loan in 2018.
By orders dated August 7, 2018 and September 17, 2018, the Court
presiding over the Virginia Class Actions consolidated those cases
for all purposes. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 3
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims, and on October
29, 2018, Plaintiffs in Class Action 2 filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of all claims. On October 30, 2020, Plaintiffs in the
Pennsylvania Class Action filed a Stipulation of Dismissal of all
claims against all defendants with prejudice, and on November 2,
2020, the Court presiding over the Pennsylvania Class Action
ordered Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice.
On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff in the West Virginia Class Action
filed a motion to stay proceedings to permit revision and final
approval of a revised settlement agreement in Class Action 1, and
also on January 29, 2021, the Court presiding over the West
Virginia Class Action granted that motion and stayed the West
Virginia Class Action.
On April 16, 2020, the parties to Class Action 1 reached a
settlement reflected in a Settlement Agreement that has been
publicly filed in Class Action 1. Among other things, upon
satisfaction of the conditions specified in the Settlement
Agreement and upon the Effective Date, the Settlement Agreement:
(1) requires Plaintiffs to seek certification of a nationwide
settlement class of all persons in the United States to whom
American Web Loan lent money from February 10, 2010 through a
future date on which the Court may enter a Preliminary Approval
Order as to the Settlement Agreement (which certification
Defendants have agreed not to oppose); (2) requires American Web
Loan, and only American Web Loan, to pay Monetary Consideration of
$65,000,000 (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC,
Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group,
LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are paying any Monetary
Consideration pursuant to the Settlement Agreement); (3) requires
American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, to cancel (as a
disputed debt) and release all claims that relate to or arise out
of the loans in its Collection Portfolio, which is valued at
Seventy-Six Million Dollars ($76,000,000) and comprised of loans to
more than 39,000 borrowers (none of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP,
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, or Seth Taube have any interest in
any of the loans that are being cancelled); (4) requires American
Web Loan and Curry to provide certain Non-Monetary Benefits (none
of Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, or Seth Taube are conferring any Non-Monetary Benefits
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement); (5) fully, finally, and
forever releases Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, and Seth Taube from any and all claims, causes of
action, suits, obligations, debts, demands, agreements, promises,
liabilities, damages, losses, controversies, costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees of any nature whatsoever, whether arising under
federal law, state law, common law or equity, tribal law, foreign
law, territorial law, contract, rule, regulation, any regulatory
promulgation (including, but not limited to, any opinion or
declaratory ruling), or any other law, including Unknown Claims,
whether suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen
or unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated,
punitive or compensatory, as of the date of the Final Fairness
Approval Order and Judgment, that relate to or arise out of loans
made by and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the
name of American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception
of claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment); (6) provides
for a mutual general release between Medley Opportunity Fund II LP,
Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc.,
Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube on the one hand, and
American Web Loan and Curry on the other hand; and (7) provides
that, as of the future Effective Date, none of Medley Opportunity
Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube
shall (i) be entitled to indemnification from AWL Defendants (as
defined in the Settlement Agreement) or (ii) bring any claim
against any Released Parties, including American Web Loan and
Curry, that relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the
name of AWL (including loans issued in the name of American Web
Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception of claims to enforce
the Settlement or the Judgment).
Between September 18, 2020 and September 21, 2020, eight (8)
individuals who are purported members of the nationwide settlement
class contemplated by the Settlement Agreement filed objections to
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement.
On November 4, 2020, the Court presiding over Class Action 1 held a
hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement.
On November 6, 2020, the Court presiding over Class Action 1 denied
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement
and ordered the parties to participate in mediation before U.S.
District Judge David J. Novak in December 2020. On December 17,
2020, the parties to Class Action 1 and the Objectors participated
in mediation before Judge Novak.
On January 20, 2021, the parties to Class Action 1 and the
Objectors reached a revised agreement in principle.
The Parties to Class Action 1 and the Objectors intend to submit a
revised Settlement Agreement to the Court presiding over Class
Action 1 as soon as practicable for final approval.
PhenixFIN Corporation is a non-diversified closed-end management
investment company that operates as a business development company.
The Company's investment objective is to generate current income
and capital appreciation, primarily through investments in
privately negotiated debt and equity securities of middle market
companies.
POLARIS INC: 8th Cir. to Hear Appeal in Johannessohn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Eighth Circuit has
agreed to hear plaintiffs' appeal from a lower court ruling denying
class certification in the matter, Riley Johannessohn, Daniel
Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James
Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.).
A putative class action is also pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges excessive
heat hazards on Sportsman ATV, seeking damages for alleged economic
loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin
Wonders, William Bates and James Pinion, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.),
October 4, 2016.
On March 31, 2020, the district court judge denied class
certification.
The Eighth Circuit agreed to hear plaintiffs' appeal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.
POLARIS INC: Appeal in Sales & Product Liability Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, In re Polaris Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), is
pending.
A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations
that certain Polaris products suffer from purportedly unresolved
fire hazards allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the
result of the consolidation of the three putative class actions
that were filed between April 5-10, 2018 and that the company
disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018.
On February 26, 2020, the district court dismissed the majority of
plaintiffs and claims.
Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the remaining
plaintiffs and have appealed, as of right, to the Eight Circuit on
behalf of the Court dismissed plaintiffs.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.
POLARIS INC: Deposition & Document Discovery in Guzman Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that deposition and document
discovery are proceeding in the case, Paul Guzman and Jeremy
Albright v. Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris
Sales Inc.
A putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California and alleges violations
of various California consumer protection laws focused on rollover
protection systems' certifications, for various Polaris off-road
vehicles sold in California: Paul Guzman and Jeremy Albright v.
Polaris Inc., Polaris Industries Inc., and Polaris Sales Inc.,
August 8, 2019.
Depositions and document discovery are proceeding in this matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Polaris Inc. is an American manufacturer of motorcycles,
snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. Polaris was
founded in Roseau, Minnesota, USA, where it still has engineering
and manufacturing. The company's corporate headquarters is in
Medina, Minnesota. The company manufactured motorcycles through its
Victory Motorcycles subsidiary until January 2017, and currently
produces motorcycles through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary,
which it purchased in April 2011. Polaris produced personal
watercraft from 1994-2004. The company was originally named Polaris
Industries Inc. and was renamed in 2019 to Polaris Inc.
RENO, NV: Estrada and 25 Cases Over Swan Lake Flood Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GLADIS ESTRADA, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF RENO,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-0579-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), Magistrate
Judge Carla Baldwin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada issued an order consolidating the following cases:
1. Estrada v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-579-MMD-CLB;
2. Cleous v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-585-MMD-CLB;
3. Novak v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-586-MMD-CLB;
4. Siminoe v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-595-MMD-CLB;
5. BERNS v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-649-MMD-CLB;
6. Bushey v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-650-MMD-CLB;
7. Loffer v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-711-MMD-CLB;
8. Dekker v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-712-MMD-CLB;
9. Nauman v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-713-MMD-CLB;
10. Schutte v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-714-MMD-CLB;
11. Spencer v. City of Reno 3:20-cv-715-MMD-CLB;
12. Llamas-Aguilar v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-11-MMD-CLB;
13. Conlin v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-12-MMD-CLB;
14. Donohoe v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-14-MMD-CLB;
15. Dutcher v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-15-MMD-CLB;
16. New Life Assembly Church v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-16-MMD-CLB;
17. Nevarez v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-17-MMD-CLB;
18. Pearson v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-21-MMD-CLB;
19. Ross v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-22-MMD-CLB;
20. Long v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-23-MMD-CLB;
21. Launer v. City of reno 3:21-cv-26-MMD-CLB;
22. Pool v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-29-MMD-CLB;
23. Hughett v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-36-MMD-CLB;
24. Sotelo v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-37-MMD-CLB;
25. Berry v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-38-MMD-CLB; and
26. Hall v. City of Reno 3:21-cv-40-MMD-CLB.
The lawsuits identified are pending before the Court and have been
assigned to the Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Baldwin.
Each case arises from the flooding of Swan Lake, located in Lemmon
Valley, Reno, Nevada in 2017. In each case, individual homeowners
allege federal claims arising from the flood in relation to their
homes and property. Although each lawsuit involves separate
homeowners and individual pieces of real property, there are
significant overlapping factual and legal issues in each case.
Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
where actions before the court involve "a common question of law or
fact," the court may consolidate the actions, in whole or in part.
In deciding whether consolidation is appropriate, the Court
considers a number of factors including "judicial economy, whether
consolidation would expedite resolution of the case, whether
separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential
prejudice to a party opposing consolidation."
Having considered these factors, Magistrate Judge Baldwin concludes
that consolidation of the cases identified is appropriate for the
purpose of discovery and pretrial matters that involve the same
legal and factual issues in each case. Therefore, for those issues
involved in each case that involve the same facts and/or legal
issues as all other cases, those matters will be consolidated under
one master case number and name. Her order, however, does not
constitute a determination that these actions should be
consolidated for trial, nor does it have the effect of making any
entity a party to an action in which it has not been joined and
served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, the Magistrate Judge does not consolidate these matters
for any issues that are unique or individual to each piece of real
property or the individual homeowners.
Magistrate Judge Baldwin ordered the Clerk to open and maintain a
master docket and case file under the style "IN RE: 2017 LEMMON
VALLEY FLOOD," master file number 3:21-cv-00093-MMD-CLB to be used
for all filings for the master case related to the Lemmon Valley
Flood Consolidated Issues. All orders, pleadings, motions and
other documents will, when filed and docketed in the master file,
be deemed filed and docketed in each other case.
Finally, all orders, pleadings, motions, and other documents will
use the following caption: "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT
OF NEVADA IN RE: 2017 LEMMON VALLEY FLOOD Case No.
3:21-cv-00093-MMD-CLB This document relates to: [Title of Document]
["All Actions"] or [if the document relates to less than all of the
consolidated cases, specify by title and case number of the
individual applicable case(s) the document is related to]."
When a document filed pertains to all actions, the phrase "All
Actions" will appear immediately after the phrase "This document
pertains to:" When a document pertains to only some, but not all,
of the actions, the document will list, immediately after the
phrase, "This document relates to:," the title and case number for
each individual action to which the document applies.
The terms of the Order related to the consolidation for purposes of
discovery and pretrial matters in cases that involve claims related
to the 2017 Lemmon Valley Flood will only to the cases it
identified, and will only apply to subsequently filed cases
involving the same facts and circumstances upon entry of a separate
order by the Court specifically consolidating those action(s) with
the Master Docket and Case Caption.
Currently pending in all, but one, of the consolidated cases listed
are motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants. Based on the
representations of the counsel at the April 23, 2021 hearing,
Magistrate Judge Baldwin finds that the motions to dismiss are not
identical as to all consolidated cases. Specifically, in a subset
of the cases, she finds that the Defendants assert arguments
specific to certain Plaintiffs' who were not identified class
members in the underlying state court class action. As such, there
are legal issues in the motions to dismiss that are applicable to
all of the consolidated cases. However, she holds that there are
separate arguments related only to a sub-set of the consolidated
cases involving the plaintiffs who were not members of the
underlying class action.
Based on these representations, Magistrate Judge Baldwin denied
each of the motions to dismiss without prejudice and ordered the
Defendants to refile the motions to dismiss under the Master Docket
and Case Caption as follows. Specifically, she ordered them leave
to file 2 master motions to dismiss in the Master Docket and Case
Caption as follows: (1) one motion to dismiss asserting legal
arguments applicable to all the consolidated cases; and (2) one
motion to dismiss asserting arguments specific to only those
Plaintiffs who were not members of the underlying class action.
The briefing schedules for each motion are set as follows:
A. Motion to Dismiss Applicable to ALL Cases: The Defendants
are ordered to re-file one master motion to dismiss asserting legal
arguments that are applicable to all cases within 14 days of the
date of the Order, and by no later than March 9, 2021. The
Plaintiffs must file one master opposition to that motion to
dismiss within 30 days after the motion is filed. The Defendants
must file their reply in support of that motion to dismiss 30 days
after the opposition is filed.
B. Motion to Dismiss re: Arguments Specific to Non-Class
Member Plaintiffs: The Defendants are ordered to re-file one
additional motion to dismiss that addresses arguments specific to
only the non-class member Plaintiffs within 30 days of the order,
and by no later than March 25, 2021. The Plaintiffs must file one
master opposition to that motion to dismiss within 30 days after
the motion is filed. The Defendants must file their reply in
support of that master motion to dismiss within 30 days after the
opposition is filed.
Pursuant to the Court's Order dated Feb. 22, 2021, discovery is
currently stayed in all of the consolidated actions until the Case
Management Conference scheduled for April 30, 2021 to allow the
parties time to explore possible settlement.
By no later than April 8, 2021, the parties are ordered to file a
"joint case management" report that details: (1) the status of the
outstanding cases; (2) the status settlement negotiations; and (3)
proposed scheduling order and discovery plan deadlines for the
Court's consideration.
The Court will issue an agenda approximately three days prior to
the conference which will include the above topics and may include
additional topics related to discovery and case administration.
The counsel are encouraged to advise the Court of any items that
they request be included to the agenda by sending an email to the
undersigned via her courtroom deputy, Lisa Mann, no later than
one-week before the conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zw4f5ewb from Leagle.com.
REWALK ROBOTICS: IPO Related Securities Class Suits Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the eight putative
class action suits filed against the company in connection with the
Company's initial public offering have been dismissed, with such
judgments being final and non-appealable.
Between September 2016 and January 2017, eight putative class
actions on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or
acquired the Company's ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to
its registration statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-197344) used
in connection with the Company's initial public offering (the IPO)
were commenced in the following courts: (i) the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo; (ii) the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County; (iii)
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California; and (iv) the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
The actions involved claims under various sections of the
Securities Act and the Exchange Act against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors and officers, the underwriters of
the Company's IPO and certain other defendants.
The four actions commenced in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo were dismissed in January 2017 for
lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California was voluntarily dismissed in March 2017.
Additionally, the two actions commenced in the Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, were
consolidated in December 2017, and voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice in November 2018, after the District Court for the
District of Massachusetts partially dismissed the related claims in
that court and the parties in the Superior Court entered a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
The action commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, was partially dismissed in August 2018. In
particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that
the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in
the IPO registration statement.
In May 2019, the court subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion
to amend to pursue Exchange Act claims and the complaint was
dismissed.
Thereafter, the plaintiff timely appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which subsequently affirmed
the dismissal and the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend in
August 2020. The plaintiff did not file a petition for certiorari
for appeal of the case to the Supreme Court of the United States by
the deadline on November 24, 2020. Thus, as of December 31, 2020,
all eight actions had been dismissed, with such judgments being
final and non-appealable.
ReWalk Robotics Ltd., a medical device company, designs, develops,
and commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals
with mobility impairments or other medical conditions. The company
was formerly known as Argo Medical Technologies Ltd. ReWalk
Robotics Ltd. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Yokne'am
Illit, Israel.
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces U.S. Regulator Inquiries Over Trading App
------------------------------------------------------------------
livemint.com reports that the free brokerage platform is facing
inquiries from federal financial regulators, state attorneys
general and the US Congress
Stock trading app Robinhood on Friday confirmed it is cooperating
with inquiries from US regulators into its decision to temporarily
throttle purchases of shares in companies such as GameStop during
frenzied trading in January.
The free brokerage platform is facing inquiries from federal
financial regulators, state attorneys general and the US Congress,
according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Robinhood, which says it is "cooperating" with the entities, is
already facing dozens of class action lawsuits.
The lawsuits "generally allege breach of contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach
of fiduciary duty and other common law claims," Robinhood said in
the filing.
"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously."
Key players in the GameStop shares trading frenzy told skeptical US
lawmakers last week that their actions were above board and in line
with ordinary stock market business.
Founders of Robinhood and the online forum Reddit were among those
to testify at a House of Representatives financial services
committee hearing.
Unprecedented recent volatility -- with shares in the GameStop
video game store surging more than 400% -- prompted calls for
regulators to review the role of social media, hedge funds and
trading platforms which some allege manipulated the market.
The GameStop Wall Street upheaval was sparked via a "subreddit"
known as WallStreetBets.
"I am not trying to throw anyone under the bus," Robinhood
co-founder and chief executive Vlad Tenev told the House committee
meeting.
"All I can say is Robinhood played it by the books." [GN]
SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Tosses Signor Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GINA SIGNOR v. SAFECO
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 0:19-cv-61937-WPD (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas entered an order:
1. denying the motion for lass certification;
2. denying the motion to exclude as moot;
3. directing the Parties to file supplemental briefs of no
more than 10 pages on the issue of whether or not remand
to state court is appropriate at this stage in the
litigation based on the Court's potential lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, on or before March 1, 2021.
Judge Dimitrouleas says, "The Court finds that on the record
presented, class certification is not appropriate under Rule
23(b)(2) nor Rule 23(b)(3), even considering the testimony of the
Plaintiff's expert Edward Stockton."
The Plaintiff Signor (brings this action on behalf of herself and
similarly situated insureds that have suffered damages due to
Defendant Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois's breach of its
insurance policy. The Plaintiff claims Defendant breached the
Policy through its practice of using the CCC ONE Market Value
System (CCC system) to adjust and settle its total loss claims in
Florida. In addition, the Plaintiff claims Defendant has breached
the Policy by refusing to pay dealer fees when settling the claims
of the putative class members.
Safeco is located in Seattle, Washington and is part of the
Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 18, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZYjHxH at no extra charge.[CC]
SCHLEGEL VILLAGES: Faces $110M COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Revait at blackburnnews.com reports that the company that
owns The Village of St. Clair long term care home is facing a
$110,000,000 class action lawsuit.
Will Davidson LLP issued the lawsuit on behalf of all residents of
the 19 long-term care facilities and nine retirement homes owned by
Schlegel Villages in Ontario.
The lawsuit claims Schlegel Villages Inc. failed to protect
residents from COVID-19 and left residents with inadequate care in
respect of basic necessities.
The Village at St. Clair was declared COVID-19 free after managing
an outbreak since December 8, 2020. Over the course of the
outbreak, the Windsor Essex County Health Unit said there were 177
residents and 143 staff members who tested positive for COVID-19.
According to the provincial data, 63 residents died after
contracting the virus during the outbreak.
"The gross negligence of Schlegel Villages at The Village of St.
Clair is reflected in the fact that they allowed a significant
outbreak of Covid-19 on December 8, 2020. It is simply inexcusable
that senior management were not better prepared to protect
vulnerable residents more than 9 months into the pandemic," said
Gary Will, lead counsel on the case.
In an emailed statement to BlackburnNews.com, the Director of
Communications with Schlegel Villages stated staff followed all
public health directives throughout the course of the pandemic.
"Our efforts at all times, whether during the COVID-19 pandemic or
in the regular daily lives of our Villages, are deeply rooted in
the best service and care possible for the residents we serve. The
entire care sector across the country has faced immense and
unprecedented challenges during the pandemic. Our teams have faced
these challenges and followed every guidance of Ontario's Chief
Medical Officer of Health," said Director of Communications
Kristian Partington.
The company is not making any further comments regarding the
lawsuit.
"As for any allegations, we will address them through the proper
legal processes," said Partington. [GN]
SCRANTON, PA: Aims to Trash Lawsuit That Challenges Garbage Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood at The Times-Tribune reports that Scranton hopes to
trash a class-action lawsuit challenging the city's annual $300
garbage fee.
Lackawanna County Judge James Gibbons heard arguments Friday on a
city motion to decertify the class of co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit
filed in December 2016. A key step in the case occurred in January
2018, when Gibbons certified the suit as a class action. That move
opened the door to a prospective class of about 18,000 property
owners potentially joining the suit as co-plaintiffs.
In 2019, notices were mailed to the 18,000 owners, asking if they
wanted to join the class-action suit. About 6,000 joined.
A decertification of the class similarly would be a key reversal
rendering the class moot.
If that were to occur, individual owners still could file their own
lawsuits, but that's unlikely, city solicitor Joseph O'Brien said
in a phone interview after Friday's hearing.
That's because what's at stake would be partial refunds of about
five years' or so worth of trash fees that may amount to a few
hundred dollars per owner, which probably would not be worth the
time or expense of pursuing an individual lawsuit, O'Brien said.
Plaintiffs' attorney Patrick Howard disagreed. Even if the class is
decertified, the issue of whether the city violated its trash
ordinance would remain. A decision in favor of the lead plaintiff
resulting in a refund would apply to others, who could then seek
their own refund from City Hall, Howard said in a phone interview
after the hearing.
The lawsuit came in response to a prior mayor and council raising
the trash fee from $178 to $300 for the 2014 budget year. Mayors
and councils have since maintained the $300 fee.
The lead plaintiff, Scranton resident Adam Guiffrida, who owns
several rental properties in the city, claims in the lawsuit that
the trash fee was arbitrarily set and improperly generates cash for
city coffers above costs of providing the service.
The city disagrees, contending the fee does not cover the costs
involved, including salaries, benefits, landfill tipping fees and
other expenses.
Central questions include whether the $300 fee significantly
exceeds the city's garbage collection costs and, if so, by how
much; and whether plaintiffs should receive partial refunds and, if
so, how much; and the time frame of years for possible refunds.
Class-action plaintiffs would not receive refunds if they lose the
case.
In arguing for decertification of the class, attorney Jordann
Conaboy, representing the city, contends Guiffrida has backed off
core allegations that fees are excessive and disproportionate, let
alone grossly disproportionate, to the costs of garbage collection.
Instead, Guiffrida switched gears, claiming the city put fees into
a wrong account and failed to properly account for them.
"Mr. Guiffrida is no longer pursuing the case that this court
certified," Conaboy told the judge.
Howard disagreed, saying the issues are determining whether the
city violated its trash-fee ordinance and, if so, determining the
refund.
"That's why the court needs to order a third party going in and
doing an accounting," Howard told the judge.
Conaboy also argued that Guiffrida, who owes $65,000 in trash fees
over several years through his various entities, also cannot claim
to have overpaid or lead a class that overpaid. In prior
proceedings, Guiffrida testified that if he were to lose the
lawsuit, he would pay the outstanding amounts owed, Conaboy said.
Gibbons did not immediately rule on the motion.[GN]
SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (SCI) said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 16, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the appeal in the class action suit entitled, Karen Moulton,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and
others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of
New Orleans, Louisiana, is still pending.
This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against an SCI
subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc.
The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors
in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the
combination.
The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit.
The case has continued against our subsidiary Stewart Enterprises
and its former individual directors.
However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
SCI said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.
SERVICE CORP: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
16 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Nancy
Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Service Corporation International and others, Case No. 20-cv-60709;
in the United States District Court Southern District of Florida
Fort Lauderdale Division.
This case was filed in April 2020 as a Florida class action
alleging that the allocation of prices among certain of the
company's cremation service contracts and cremation merchandise
contracts, and the related preneed trust funding, and the failure
to disclose commissions paid and sales practices associated with
the sale of third-party travel protection plans, violate the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and constitute
unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks refunds, general, actual, compensatory and
exemplary damages, civil penalties, interest, and attorney fees.
SCI said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are unable to
estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Service Corporation International is an American provider of
funeral goods and services as well as cemetery property and
services. It is headquartered in Neartown, Houston, Texas. SCI
operates more than 1500 funeral homes and 400 cemeteries in 43
states, eight Canadian provinces, and Puerto Rico.
SOUTHERN CO: Monroe ERS Securities Suit Concluded
-------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the securities class
action suit initiated by Monroe County Employees' Retirement System
has been concluded.
In January 2017, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by
Monroe County Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons
who purchased shares of Southern Company's common stock between
April 25, 2012 and October 30, 2013, as subsequently amended.
The amended complaint named as defendants Southern Company, certain
of its current and former officers, and certain former Mississippi
Power officers and alleged that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper County energy
facility in violation of certain provisions under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint sought, among other
things, compensatory damages and litigation costs and attorneys'
fees.
In 2018, the court issued an order dismissing certain claims
against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power
and dismissing the allegations related to a number of the
statements that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading.
In 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion for
reconsideration and also denied a motion to certify the issue for
interlocutory appeal.
In 2019, the court certified the plaintiffs' proposed class and
entered an order staying all deadlines in the case pending
mediation. In the third quarter 2020, the parties reached a
settlement and the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of settlement and
motion for preliminary approval to resolve the case on a class-wide
basis, which the court granted on October 1, 2020.
On January 14, 2021, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.
The settlement amount was paid entirely through existing insurance
policies and did not have a material impact on Southern Company's
financial statements.
This matter is now concluded.
The Southern Company, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It
operates in four segments: Gas Distribution Operations, Gas
Pipeline Investments, Wholesale Gas Services, and Gas Marketing
Services. The Southern Company was founded in 1945 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Settlement with Public School Teachers Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 16, 2021,
that the Court declined to approve a proposed settlement without
prejudice in an amended consolidated class action complaint filed
by the Public School Teachers' Pension & Retirement Fund of Chicago
and the Cambridge Retirement against Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc.
because the Court determined that as a procedural matter, the
plaintiffs' counsel had not taken the appropriate actions to be
appointed to represent the purported class of HRG shareholders.
The amended consolidated class action complaint filed earlier in
2018 was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin by the Public School Teachers' Pension &
Retirement Fund of Chicago and the Cambridge Retirement against
Spectrum Brands' Legacy, Inc.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint added HRG Group, Inc.,
the predecessor to the Company, as a defendant and asserted
additional claims against the Company on behalf of a purported
class of HRG shareholders.
The class period of the consolidated amended complaint is from
January 26, 2017 to November 19, 2018, and the plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, attorneys’
and expert fees and costs.
During the year ended September 30, 2020, the Company reached a
proposed settlement resulting in an insignificant loss, net of
third-party insurance coverage and payment, pending final approval
by the Court.
In February 2021, the Court declined to approve the proposed
settlement without prejudice because the Court determined that as a
procedural matter the plaintiff's counsel had not taken the
appropriate actions to be appointed to represent the purported
class of HRG shareholders.
The parties are discussing appropriate actions that could address
the procedural deficiency, but there can be no assurance that it
will be addressed or that a settlement on the same terms, or any
other terms, will ultimately be reached and approved by the Court.
Spectrum Brands said, "In the event a settlement is not reached and
approved, the Company intends to vigorously defend the
litigation."
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. is a diversified global branded
consumer products company. The company manages the businesses in
four vertically integrated, product-focused segments: (i) Hardware
& Home Improvement, (ii) Home and Personal Care, (iii) Global Pet
Care, and (iv) Home and Garden. The Company manufactures, markets
and/or distributes its products globally in North America, Europe,
Middle East & Africa, Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions
through a variety of trade channels, including retailers,
wholesalers and distributors, original equipment manufacturers, and
construction companies. The company is based in Middleton,
Wisconsin.
SYNEOS HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Vaitkuviene Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Syneos Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029
(E.D.N.C.), is still pending.
On December 1, 2017, the first of two virtually identical actions
alleging federal securities law claims was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers on behalf of a putative class
of its shareholders.
The first action, captioned Bermudez v. INC Research, Inc., et al,
No. 17-09457 (S.D.N.Y.) in the Southern District of New York, names
as defendants the Company, Michael Bell, Alistair Macdonald,
Michael Gilbertini, and Gregory S. Rush, and the second action,
Vaitkuviene v. Syneos Health, Inc., et al, No. 18-0029 (E.D.N.C.)
in the Eastern District of North Carolina, filed on January 25,
2018, names as defendants the Company, Alistair Macdonald, and
Gregory S. Rush (the Initial Defendants).
Both complaints allege similar claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
May 10, 2017 and November 8, 2017 (the Vaitkuviene action) and
November 9, 2017 (the Bermudez action).
The complaints allege that the Company published inaccurate or
incomplete information regarding, among other things, the financial
performance and business outlook for inVentiv's business prior to
the Merger and with respect to the combined company following the
Merger. On January 30, 2018, two alleged shareholders separately
filed motions seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and approving
the selection of lead counsel.
On March 30, 2018, Plaintiff in the Bermudez action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the Bermudez action, without prejudice,
and as to all defendants.
On May 29, 2018, the Court in the Vaitkuviene action appointed the
San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund and El Paso Firemen &
Policemen's Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiffs and, on June 7, 2018,
the Court entered a schedule providing for, among other things,
Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 23, 2018
(later extended to July 30, 2018).
Lead Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 30, 2018,
which also includes a claim against the Initial Defendants, as well
as each member of the board of directors at the time of the INC
Research - inVentiv Health merger vote in July 2017, contending
that the inVentiv merger proxy was misleading under Section 14(a)
of the Act.
Lead Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders (i) declaring that
the lawsuit is a proper class action and (ii) awarding compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest
thereon, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, to Lead Plaintiffs and
other class members.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
on September 20, 2018. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in
Opposition to such motion on November 21, 2018, and Defendants
filed a Reply to such response on December 5, 2018. The District
Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to a magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation. On September 26, 2019, the magistrate
judge stayed the action and, on August 7, 2020, the magistrate
judge lifted the stay.
Also on August 7, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending to the District Court that Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss be denied.
On September 4, 2020, Defendants filed written objections to the
Magistrate Report, requesting that the District Court grant the
Motion to Dismiss. Lead Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition
to such objections on October 2, 2020.
The Company and the other defendants deny the allegations in these
complaints and intend to defend vigorously against these claims.
Syneos said, "The Company is presently unable to predict the
duration, scope, or result of the foregoing putative class actions,
or any other related lawsuit. As such, the Company is presently
unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range
of losses, if any, related to these matters. While the Company
intends to defend the putative class action litigation vigorously,
the outcome of such litigation or any other litigation is
necessarily uncertain. The Company could be forced to expend
significant resources in the defense of these lawsuits or future
ones, and it may not prevail. As such, these matters could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, annual, or
interim results of operations, cash flows, or its financial
condition."
Syneos Health, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
solutions company in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America. It operates through
two segments, Clinical Solutions and Commercial Solutions. The
company was formerly known as INC Research Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to Syneos Health, Inc. in January 2018. Syneos
Health, Inc. was incorporated in 2010 and is headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.
TELEXFREE INC: Fidelity Bank Will Pay $22.5MM to Resolve Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leominster-based Fidelity Bank and its former President John F.
Merrill agreed to pay $22.5 million Friday to settle claims against
them in a class-action lawsuit over the multibillion-dollar
TelexFree Ponzi scheme.
The bank allowed TelexFree -- one of the owners of whom is
Merrill's brother -- to deposit large sums of money in bank
accounts shortly before the scheme unraveled, though Merrill and
the bank have not been criminally charged.
A lawyer for Fidelity, Ian D. Roffman, said Friday the bank and
Merrill continue to deny any prior knowledge that TelexFree was a
scam, and are confident they might have walked away paying nothing
had they chosen not to settle.
However, Roffman said, there are never any guarantees in
litigation, and a number of factors including hardships posed by
the COVID-19 pandemic -- influenced the decision.
"Removing the risk in litigation will be extremely meaningful,"
Roffman said, as the bank "looks to weather the current economic
storm . . . and come out even stronger."
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Robert J. Bonsignore, told a judge
Friday that Fidelity "dealt with the situation not as fast as they
should have," but noted their services to TelexFree were of much
shorter duration than other banks being sued.
"Fidelity was in and out of this in a second," Bonsignore said,
though he added the several months they provided services were
important in keeping the company afloat.
"The fact they were only in it for a short time is still bad," he
said.
Friday's settlement is only the second in what is anticipated to be
a lengthy class-action lawsuit over TelexFree, a Marlboro-based
company that disguised itself as an internet phone service company,
but was in reality a giant pyramid scheme.
The company relied almost entirely on new infusions of cash from
"promoters" -- people who paid for the right to promote the
voice-over internet services TelexFree provided -- to stay afloat.
The promoters didn't actually sell the product -- only hyped it --
and the scheme grew into a billion-dollar international operation
now considered to have impacted more victims than any other Ponzi
scheme in history.
"This litigation will quickly become very active and very
expensive," Roffman said Friday as he detailed Fidelity's rationale
for settling.
Fidelity's involvement in the case stems from its decision to allow
TelexFree to open several bank accounts for several months in late
2013.
Lawyers said Friday that former bank President John Merrill
introduced his brother James M. Merrill -- who co-owned TelexFree
-- to employees of the bank who set up the accounts.
James Merrill was sentenced to six years in federal prison in 2017
for his role in the scheme. John Merrill and Fidelity have denied
prior knowledge TelexFree was a scheme, with Roffman Friday noting
neither the bank nor the former president have been criminally
charged.
Roffman Friday said John Merrill is a lifelong Worcester resident
involved in many community and philanthropic organizations. He left
the bank voluntarily in 2016, Roffman said.
John Merrill brought concerns about the volume of money flowing
through TelexFree accounts to an outside auditor in 2013 who did
not see anything "specifically suspicious" but recommended the
accounts be closed because the company didn't have the capacity to
appropriately monitor such transactions, Roffman said
Fidelity allowed TelexFree to empty its accounts after deciding to
suspend their relationship. The last accounts were closed in
January of 2014, Roffman said, three months before authorities
announced charges against TelexFree.
Roffman said Friday that the first time the bank or John Merrill
heard of the charges was in the media. He said an outside
investigation the bank ordered cleared Merrill and the bank of
insider knowledge.
Bonsignore, the plaintiff's lawyer, said Friday that John Merrill
and Fidelity, as part of the settlement, agreed to share
information with the plaintiffs to assist them in the case against
other defendants.
Bonsignore said the plaintiffs have already questioned John
Merrill.
"I'll just leave it (there)," he said, before changing the
subject.
It was not clear from Friday's court hearing whether Merrill will
be paying into the settlement. Bonsignore said Fidelity will be
partly covered by insurance, but will also be paying a
"considerable amount" out of pocket.
Bonsignore and Roffman both said the $22.5 million figure was a
fair one achieved after help from experienced mediators, including
firms that helped during litigation tied to the infamous Bernie
Madoff Ponzi scheme.
Bonsignore said there are about 700,000 potential class members who
have been contacted, with nobody lodging any valid objections to
the settlement.
Bonsignore and the team of plaintiffs lawyers will receive 30% of
the settlement -- $6.75 million -- in exchange for their work.
Bonsignore said the rate is standard for cases of this nature.
The lawyer expounded at length upon the millions of pages of
documents and many long-hour days lawyers have spent on the
litigation, prompting U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman
to ask him to wrap up his summary early.
Hillman told both sides he would take the matter under advisement.
Shortly thereafter, he filed decisions approving both the
settlement and the lawyers' requests for fees.
Lawyers did not state in court Friday how much the average person
duped in the scheme might receive as a result of Fidelity's
settlement.
A website the plaintiffs have set up for victims,
telexfreesettlement.com, indicates money won't be paid out until
later in the litigation.
Bonsignore said Friday he and his team of lawyers are in aggressive
settlement talks with other defendants to get as much back for
victims as possible.
The class-action case Fidelity settled Friday is separate from an
ongoing action in U.S. Bankruptcy Court that is also returning
money to victims.
Authorities last summer announced that $150 million in payments
would be distributed to more than 100,000 victims in that case.
[GN]
TRINET GROUP: 401(k) Plan-Related Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to the TriNet 401(k) Plan and
the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan.
On September 29, 2020, a class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
the directors of certain TriNet subsidiaries and other TriNet
employees on behalf of participants in two retirement plans
available to TriNet's eligible worksite employees, the TriNet
401(k) Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan.
The complaint is similar to claims recently brought against a
number of employers including Professional Employer Organizations
(PEOs) and generally alleges that the defendants violated certain
fiduciary obligations to Plan participants under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to overseeing
plan investment and recordkeeping fees.
TriNet said, "These claims are in the early stages, and we are
unable to reasonably estimate any possible loss, or range of loss,
with respect to this matter. We believe the claims are without
merit."
TriNet Group, Inc. provides human resources solutions for small and
midsize businesses in the United States and Canada. TriNet Group,
Inc. was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Dublin,
California.
TRUSTMARK CORP: Investors' Appeal Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal taken by
certain individual investors and entities from their
court-dismissed motion to intervene in a class action lawsuit
against Trustmark National Bank (TNB) remains pending.
On August 23, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions and one individual, each of which are unaffiliated
with Trustmark, as defendants.
The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers
from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies
received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen
Stanford and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.
Class Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Class Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.
In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford-related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and
approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee
(OSIC) to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under
certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of
Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to
intervene in this action.
In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.
In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint that
asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial
institutions.
The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the
amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from
Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants
allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other
monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies
by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the
asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify
damages.
In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification, staying all other discovery and setting a deadline
for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.
In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the
OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs'
fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's
claims.
The court denied the motions by TNB and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive
fraudulent transfer claims.
On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and participating
in conversion and (v) conspiracy.
On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in the
action.
On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also denied
the motion by TNB and the other financial institution defendants to
reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims. On August 24, 2016, TNB
filed its answer to the SAC.
On October 20, 2017, the OSIC filed a motion seeking an order
lifting the discovery stay and establishing a trial schedule. On
November 4, 2016, the OSIC filed a First Amended Intervenor
Complaint, which added claims for (i) aiding, abetting or
participation in violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii)
aiding, abetting or participation in the breach of fiduciary duty.
On November 7, 2017, the court denied the Class Plaintiffs' motion
seeking class certification and designation of class
representatives and counsel, finding that common issues of fact did
not predominate. The court granted the OSIC's motion to lift the
discovery stay that it had previously ordered.
On May 3, 2019, individual investors and entities filed motions to
intervene in the action. On September 18, 2019, the court denied
the motions to intervene.
On October 14, 2019, certain of the proposed intervenors filed a
notice of appeal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Trustmark Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
Trustmark National Bank that provides banking and other financial
solutions to individuals and corporate institutions in the United
States. Trustmark Corporation was founded in 1889 and is
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.
VAIL RESORTS: Replies to Alleged Violations of Federal Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vail Resorts made its first response to a proposed class action
lawsuit filed in December on behalf of three former and current
employees at its Beaver Creek Resort.
The lawsuit alleges that the company, which operates 34 ski resorts
in North America, has repeatedly violated federal labor laws as
well as state labor laws in Colorado, California, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Washington, New York, Vermont, Michigan and Utah.
Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf
of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina, the lawsuit seeks
state class action status and federal collective claim status for
current and former employees who worked for Vail Resorts over the
past three years.
It argues the publicly-traded company has systematically failed to
pay Quint, Linn and Molina and other hourly employees for all hours
worked at wages specified in employment agreements, including
overtime wages.
The 167-page lawsuit was filed Dec. 3 by California-based attorneys
Edward P. Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston, who have declined to
comment on the case.
The lawsuit alleges Vail Resorts fails to pay ski and snowboard
instructors and other employees, including ticket scanners and lift
operators, to varying degrees, for their entire shifts, for "off
the clock work" Vail Resorts requires or accepts, for some types of
training, for travel on company shuttles, for dressing and
undressing time, or for the use, purchase or maintenance of their
ski and snowboard equipment or their cellphones required for work.
In Vail Resorts' reply, a partial motion to dismiss filed by the
firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, the company does not
attempt to counter any of the alleged labor law violations. It
instead argues the three Colorado-based plaintiffs lack standing to
pursue state law claims in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Washington, New York, Vermont, Michigan or Utah.
"Plaintiffs purport to bring a nationwide collective action filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as a variety of Rule 23
class actions under the wage and common laws of nine states,
namely, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New
York, Vermont, Michigan, and Utah. Yet the allegations in
plaintiffs' complaint allege and confirm they worked only in
Colorado," the company's reply states.
"Plaintiffs have not (and cannot) establish an injury in fact under
the laws of California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, New York,
Vermont, Michigan, or Utah," the reply continues.
"By their own allegations, plaintiffs never worked in those states,
and have not established they were otherwise subject to the laws of
those states. As several cases from this district hold, plaintiffs
have no injury under the laws of those states and lack standing to
assert claims under those laws on behalf of themselves or a
putative class . . . plaintiffs lack standing to allege such
out-of-state violations, and these claims should be dismissed."
Vail Resorts and Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart did not
respond to requests for comment on the reply to the lawsuit.
Vail Resorts' reply also notes that 10 additional people have since
filed consent forms to opt into the lawsuit against the company,
all alleging to have worked for Vail Resorts, and all alleging that
they, too, were not properly paid for all time worked or for
overtime or expenses.
"The filing of ten 'consent forms' does not save these claims,"
Vail Resorts' argues in its reply. "As the Tenth Circuit has
observed, 'standing is determined as of the date of the filing of
the complaint.' As of the date the complaint was filed, there was
no connection alleged between any of the named plaintiffs and any
one of the non-Colorado states. This is still the case."
The reply asks the court to dismiss claims six through 20, which
allege violations of state labor laws in California, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Washington, New York, Vermont, Michigan and Utah, as
well as claims 21 and 22, breach of contract and unjust enrichment
"to the extent they seek relief under the laws outside of
Colorado."
Claims one through four allege federal Fair Labor Standards Act
violations, including failure to pay for all hours worked, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to reimburse for expenses, and
failure to pay for training time, and count five alleges violations
of Colorado wage laws.
The lawsuit alleges Vail Resorts has exploited the three plaintiffs
and thousands of other seasonal employees in violation of federal
and state labor laws for years through egregious practices that
continue to the present.
"This action seeks to hold Vail Resorts accountable for its
misconduct, fairly compensate plaintiffs and other similarly
situated current and former Vail Resorts employees for damages
preliminarily estimated to total more than $100 million," the
lawsuit states.
Dietrich and Galdston are anticipated to file a response to Vail
Resorts' reply to their lawsuit in coming weeks. A telephone
scheduling conference between the two parties is set for March 17
before Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher in Grand Junction,
according to court records. [GN]
VICEROY HOTEL: Jordan FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAKE JORDAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VICEROY HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC; VICEROY
HOTELS, LLC; VHG BEVERLY HILLS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-588243, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on February 24,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01338 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act for their failure to provide proper disclosure
and proper summary of rights.
Viceroy Hotel Management, LLC is a hotel company headquartered in
Los Angeles, California.
Viceroy Hotels, LLC is a hotel company doing business in
California.
VHG Beverly Hills, LLC is a hotel company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Diana Lerma, Esq.
Katherine Ellis, Esq.
STOKES WAGNER ALC
15250 Ventura Blvd., Suite 710
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 618-4128
Facsimile: (619) 232-4840
E-mail: dlerma@stokeswagner.com
kellis@stokeswagner.com
VIRGIN AMERICA: Summary Judgment Order in Bernstein Partly Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA BERNSTEIN; ESTHER GARCIA; LISA MARIE SMITH, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.; ALASKA AIRLINES,
INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos. 19-15382, 20-15186 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms in
part and reverses in part the district court's order granting
summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on virtually all of their
claims.
The case requires the Court to determine whether certain provisions
of the California Labor Code apply to an interstate transportation
company's relationship with its employees. Plaintiffs Bernstein,
Garcia, and Smith sued their employer, Virgin, alleging that Virgin
violated a host of California labor laws.
The Plaintiffs are California-based flight attendants who were
employees of Virgin. During the Class Period, approximately 25% of
Virgin's flights were between California airports. Approximately
75% of Virgin's flights took off or landed at a non-California
airport, but the vast majority of those flights retained some
connection to California: "From 2011 through 2016, the daily
percentage of Virgin's flights that arrived in or departed from
California airports was never less than 88%, and during some years
reached 99%."
The class members spent approximately 31.5% of their time working
within California's borders. There is no evidence in the record to
suggest that the class members spent more than 50% of their time
working in any one state, or that they worked in any other state
more than they worked in California. Virgin's fleet of aircraft
were registered with the Federal Aviation Administration at
Virgin's headquarters in Burlingame, California, and the record
does not reflect any other business headquarters.
In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Virgin failed to
pay minimum wage (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1194.2),
overtime (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 510, 1194), and for every hour
worked (Cal. Lab. Code Section 204); failed to provide required
meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512), rest breaks
(Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7), and accurate wage statements (Cal.
Lab. Code Section 226); failed to pay waiting time penalties1 (Cal.
Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, 203); and violated the Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200). The
Plaintiffs also sought compensation under the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act (Cal. Lab. Code Section 2698)
("PAGA").
Virgin disputes that it is subject to California law, but does not
contend that any other state's labor laws ought to apply to it.
In November 2016, the district court held that the Plaintiffs
satisfied the requirements for a class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), and certified the following
classes:
a. Class: All individuals who have worked as California-based
flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. at any time during the
period from March 18, 2011 (four years from the filing of the
original Complaint) through the date established by the Court for
notice of certification of the Class.
b. California Resident Subclass: All individuals who have
worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin America,
Inc. while residing in California at any time during the Class
Period.
c. Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All individuals who have
worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin America,
Inc. and have separated from their employment at any time since
March 18, 2012.
On July 9, 2018, the district court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment in large part. It held that the California
Labor Code applied to all work performed in California, and that
"the presumption against extraterritorial application does not
apply for the failure to pay for all hours worked, to pay overtime,
to pay waiting time penalties, and to provide accurate wage
statements" because the conduct underlying those claims took place
in California. The district court also rejected the "job situs"
test Virgin proposed, holding that, under California law, an
employee need not work "exclusively or principally" in California
to benefit from California law.
With respect to the dormant Commerce Clause arguments, the district
court held that application of the California Labor Code does not
violate the dormant Commerce Clause because the California Labor
Code does not impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce
that is "clearly excessive in relation to the putative local
benefits," citing Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142
(1970). The district court further held that the California meal
and rest break requirements were not preempted by field, conflict,
or express preemption pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act or the
Airline Deregulation Act. It awarded PAGA penalties for initial
and subsequent violations of the Labor Code.
The district court then awarded attorney's fees and costs to the
Plaintiffs' counsel, excluding 148.1 hours that were not properly
documented, reducing the award for "complaint and client
communications" time by 10%, and imposing a 5% reduction to the
remaining hours. It then applied a 2.0 multiplier based on the
factors set forth in Ketchum v. Moses, 17 P.3d 735, 741-42 (Cal.
2001). It awarded the full amount of costs that Plaintiffs'
counsel claimed based on its conclusion that the amounts claimed
were reasonable.
Virgin appealed from the district court's summary judgment and
grant of attorney's fees, and the cases were consolidated for oral
argument.
As a threshold matter, Ninth Circuit must consider whether the
dormant Commerce Clause permits application of California labor law
in the context of the case. The Appellate Court holds that that
the dormant Commerce Clause does not bar applying California law.
It is not persuaded that California's labor laws are similar in
character and effect to Illinois' mudflaps decree and Arizona's
train-length limitation. Virgin has not identified any other state
labor laws with which it might be required to comply.
Indeed, because California labor law's application is based upon
the parties' various contacts with the state a claim that a
proliferation of similar state laws would substantially burden
Virgin is dubious. Virgin does not have anything like the number
of contacts with any other state that it has with California, and
it fails to proffer evidence of any burden it allegedly suffers
from doing business in other states with different regulations.
Virgin challenges application of California law to both the Class
and the California Resident Subclass. But Virgin's proposed "job
situs" test is a misinterpretation of California law, the Ninth
Circuit opines. Each of the Plaintiffs' claims requires separate
analysis to determine whether the California Supreme Court would
apply California law to the Class and Subclass under the
circumstances of the case. Where there is no genuine issue of
material fact whether Virgin complied with California law, the
Ninth Circuit declines to determine whether and how the California
Supreme Court would apply that particular law to Virgin.
With respect to the district court's summary judgment, the Ninth
Circuit, affirms the district court's summary judgment to the
Plaintiffs on their claims for overtime (Section 510); for
violation of meal and rest break requirements (Sections 226.7,
512); for wage statement deficiencies (Section 226); and for
waiting time penalties (Sections 201 and 202). It also affirms the
district court's decision on class certification.
The Ninth Circuit reverses the district court's summary judgment to
the Plaintiffs on their claims for minimum wage (Section 1182.12);
for payment for each hour worked (Section 204); and for heightened
penalties for subsequent violations under PAGA. It vacates the
district court's order granting attorney's fees and costs to the
Plaintiffs, and remands for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.
Among other things, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs
posit that a Virgin flight attendant could be ordered to report for
duty five hours prior to their scheduled flight, but not be paid
for any of that time. However, the Plaintiffs have not alleged
that this ever happened, nor that it would plausibly happen. The
fact that pay is not specifically attached to each hour of work
does not mean that Virgin violated California law. The Ninth
Circuit therefore reverses the district court's summary judgment to
the Plaintiffs on their claims for minimum wage and payment for all
hours worked.
The Ninth Circuit also reverses the district court's holding that
Virgin is subject to heightened penalties for any labor code
violation that occurred prior to that point. Virgin was not
notified by the Labor Commissioner or any court that it was subject
to the California Labor Code until the district court partially
granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Finally, since it reverses in part the district court's judgment on
the merits, California law requires that the Ninth Circuit vacates
the attorney's fees and costs award "because it cannot say with
certainty that the district court would exercise its discretion the
same way" had the Plaintiffs not prevailed on virtually all of
their claims. It, therefore, vacates the district court's order
awarding fees and costs to the Plaintiffs' counsel, and remands the
issue of attorney's fees and costs to the district court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 23, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/epx5v2kv from Leagle.com.
Shay Dvoretzky (argued), Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Douglas W. Hall, and Anthony J. Dick, Jones Day,
in Washington, D.C.; David J. Feder, Jones Day, in Los Angeles,
California; Robert Jon Hendricks -- rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com --
and Brendan T. Killeen -- brendan.killeen@morganlewis.com Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, California; for
Defendants-Appellants.
Charles J. Cooper (argued), Peter A. Patterson , and John D.
Ohlendorf, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Monique Olivier
-- monique@dplolaw.com -- (argued), Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP,
San Francisco, California; James E. Miller -- jmiller@sfmslaw.com
-- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, Chester, Connecticut;
Alison Kosinski -- alison@ktlawsf.com -- Kosinski & Thiagaraj LLP,
in San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Jennifer L. Utrecht (argued) and Mark B. Stern, Appellate Staff;
Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C.; Steven G.
Bradbury, General Counsel; Paul M. Geier, Assistant General
Counsel; Charles E. Enloe, Trial Attorney; United States Department
of Transportation, in Washington, D.C.; Arjun Garg, Chief Counsel;
Jonathan W. Cross, Senior Attorney; Federal Aviation
Administration; for Amicus Curiae United States.
Anton Metlitsky and Kendall Turner, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, in New
York City; Chris Hollinger and Adam KohSweeney, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, in San Francisco, California; Patricia N. Vercelli, Airlines
for America, in Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey N. Shane, International
Air Transport Association, in Geneva, Switzerland; for Amici Curiae
Airlines for America and International Air Transport Association.
Adam G. Unikowsky, Jenner & Block LLP, in Washington, D.C.; Steven
P. Lehotsky and Janet Galeria, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, in
Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Chamber of Commerce of the
United States.
Sarah Pierce Wimberly, Andrew Duncan McClintock, and Jessica Lynn
Asbridge, Ford Harrison LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, for Amicus Curiae
Regional Airline Association.
Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Anastasia Sandstrom, Senior
Counsel; Office of the Attorney General, Seattle, Washington; Phil
Weiser, Attorney General, Denver, Colorado; William Tong, Attorney
General, Hartford, Connecticut, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney
General, Wilmington, Delaware; Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, in
Washington, D.C.; Clare E. Connors, Attorney General, in Honolulu,
Hawaii; Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, in Springfield, Illinois;
Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, in Augusta, Maine; Maura Healey,
Attorney General, in Boston, Massachusetts; Brian E. Frosh,
Attorney General, in Baltimore, Maryland; Keith Ellison, Attorney
General, St. Paul, Minnesota; Jim Hood, Attorney General, in
Jackson, Mississippi; Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, in Carson
City, Nevada; Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, in Trenton, New
Jersey; Letitia James, Attorney General, in New York City; Josh
Stein, Attorney General, in Raleigh, North Carolina; Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, Salem, Oregon; Josh Shapiro, Attorney
General, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas J. Donovan Jr.,
Attorney General, in Montpelier, Vermont; Mark R. Herring, Attorney
General, in Richmond, Virginia; for Amici Curiae Washington,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Vermont, and Virginia.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General; Satoshi Yanai, Supervising Deputy
Attorney General; Mana Barari, Deputy Attorney General; California
Department of Justice, in Los Angeles, California; for Amicus
Curiae State of California.
Kathleen P. Barnard, Darin M. Dalmat, and Kelly Ann Skahan, Barnard
Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP, in Seattle, Washington, for Amicus Curiae
Association of Flight Attendants-Communication Workers of America,
AFL-CIO.
WALGREEN CO: Slafter Suit Removed from Circuit Ct. to S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN SLAFTER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALGREEN COMPANY
d/b/a WALGREENS, Case No. 2020-L-1777 (Filed Dec. 17, 2020) was
removed from the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
on Feb. 10, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00150-RJD to the
proceeding.
The complaint alleges a Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
class action on behalf of a putative class of "All employees who
entered Defendant's Walgreens Locations in the State of Illinois
who had their facial geometry scanned, biometric identifiers,
and/or biometric information collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained, maintained, stored, disclosed, or disseminated
by Defendant during the applicable statutory period."
Walgreen Company is an American company that operates as the
second-largest pharmacy store chain in the United States behind CVS
Health. It specializes in filling prescriptions, health and
wellness products, health information, and photo services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
The Defendant is represented by:
Sarah Kuehnel, Esq.
Mallory S. Zoia, Esq
Anne E. Larson, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 650
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 412-8059
Facsimile: (314) 802.3936
E-mail: sarah.kuehnel@ogletree.com
mallory.zoia@ogletree.com
anne.larson@ogletree.com
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Discovery Ongoing in Suit vs. Comerica Bank
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is
ongoing in the consolidated class action suit filed against
Comerica Bank entitled, In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW.
In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation, Case No.
2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a consolidated class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (California District Court) brought on behalf of former
Noteholders and Unitholders against Comerica Bank. It is comprised
of five separate lawsuits filed between January 4, 2018 and April
26, 2018.
The five lawsuits were consolidated, Lead Class Counsel was
appointed, and Lead Class Counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on September 19, 2019. The Consolidated Class Action
Complaint asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1),
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count 2), negligence
(Count 3), and violations of California's unfair competition law
(Count 4).
On November 1, 2019, Comerica moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of
subject matter jurisdiction).
With respect to Count 1 (aiding and abetting fraud) and Count 2
(aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty), Comerica argued
that the Class Plaintiffs' allegations did not demonstrate that
Comerica had actual knowledge of the underlying fraud and breach of
fiduciary duty that Comerica is alleged to have aided and abetted;
with respect to Count 3 (negligence), Comerica argued that there is
no duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica; and with respect
to Count 4 (California Unfair Competition Law), Comerica argued
that a claim for unfair competition fails when there is no actual
knowledge of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty and no duty owed.
In addition, Comerica argued that all causes of action failed to
state a claim for the additional reason that Comerica's filing or
non-filing of a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) under federal law
cannot support any of the causes of action, and that the Court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction because all of the causes of
action belong to the Liquidation Trust such that the Class
Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue them.
On August 5, 2020, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Comerica's motion to dismiss. The Court denied
Comerica's request to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 on the ground that the
allegations of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint sufficiently
alleged that Comerica had the requisite knowledge of the underlying
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The Court granted Comerica's
request to dismiss Count 3 on the ground that the allegations of
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint did not sufficiently allege
a duty of care owed to non-customers of Comerica.
On Count 4, the Court granted the motion to dismiss to the extent
it relied on a failure to file a SAR (which claim the Court found
was preempted by federal law, which prohibits disclosure of a SAR),
but denied the motion to dismiss to the extent the complaint relied
on violations arising from non-SAR-related conduct, and the Court
granted the class leave to amend the complaint.
The Court also denied Comerica's request to dismiss based on
Comerica's allegations that the class lacked standing and that the
Trust cannot be a member of a class, finding instead that the class
has plausibly alleged standing to sue, and that the question of
whether the Trust can be a class member did not need to be answered
at this stage.
On August 26, 2020, the putative class filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which asserted claims for
aiding and abetting fraud (Count 1), aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty (Count 2), and violations of California's unfair
competition law (Count 3). Comerica answered the First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on September 16, 2020.
Discovery is now proceeding in the litigation, and the Court has
entered a schedule setting the following dates and deadlines: (i)
April 16, 2021 as the deadline for plaintiffs to move for class
certification; (ii) August 3, 2021 as the fact discovery cut-off;
(iii) August 20, 2021 as the deadline to file dispositive motions;
(iv) September 7, 2021 as the deadline for initial expert
disclosures and reports; (v) October 22, 2021 as the expert
discovery cut-off; (vi) December 14, 2021 as the final pretrial
conference; and (vii) January 11, 2022 as the start of what is
estimated to be a 10-day jury trial.
The Trustee asserts that he is a member of the putative class and
Comerica disputes that assertion.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC (the "Wind-Down Entity") were
formed pursuant to the Plan. The purpose of the Trust is to
prosecute various causes of action owned by the Trust, to litigate
and resolve claims filed against the Debtors, to pay allowed
administrative and priority claims against the Debtors (including
professional fees), to receive cash from certain sources and, in
accordance with the Plan, to make distributions of cash to
Interestholders subject to the retention of various reserves and
after the payment of Trust expenses and administrative and priority
claims. The trust is based in Sherman Oaks, California.
ZILLOW GROUP: April 14 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Feb. 22 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action that
would benefit purchasers of securities of Zillow Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ZG):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
To: All persons and/or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Zillow Group, Inc. ("Zillow") securities during the period
from November 17, 2014, through August 8, 2017, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington, that the following class
has been certified in the above-captioned action (the "Action"):
All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Zillow securities
(Class A common stock, CUSIP #98954M101; Class C capital stock,
CUSIP #98954M200; 2% convertible senior notes due 2021, CUSIP
#98954MAA9; and 2.75% convertible senior notes due 2020, CUSIP
#897888AB9) between November 17, 2014 and August 8, 2017, both
dates inclusive, excluding Defendants, the officers and directors
of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a
controlling interest.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") can be downloaded from www.strategicclaims.net/Zillow or
by contacting the Notice Administrator: Zillow Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230,
600 North Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA 19063; Tel:
866-274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985; Email:
info@strategicclaims.net.
If you did not receive this Summary Notice by email or by mail, and
you are and decide to remain a member of the Class, please send
your name and address to the Notice Administrator so that if any
further notices are disseminated in connection with the Action, you
will receive them. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice,
may be made to Class Counsel: Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Jonathan
Stern, Esq., THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A., 275 Madison Avenue, 34th
Floor, New York, New York, 10016. If you are a Class Member, you
have the right to decide whether to remain a member of the Class.
If you choose to remain a member of the Class, you do not need to
do anything at this time other than to retain your documentation
reflecting your transactions in Zillow securities. You will
automatically be included in the Class unless you exclude yourself
from the Class. If you do not wish to remain a member of the Class,
you must exclude yourself from the Class. If you do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in
the Action, including all past, present and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment in the Action, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than
April 14, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the full printed Notice. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court’s discretion
whether to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion from the
Class if there is a settlement or judgment in the Action.
Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator. Please do not call the Court
with questions.
Dated: January 14, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
For the Western District of Washington [GN]
[*] Clyde & Co Attorney Discusses Victoria Bushfire Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Wearne, Esq., of Clyde & Co LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that a recent dispute between group members and their
property insurers in two Victorian bushfire class actions has left
insurers revisiting how they engage with plaintiff law firms and
sets up an interesting dynamic for the interplay of litigation
funders and subrogating insurers. The decision highlights the
importance of careful drafting of policy terms in addressing the
insurer's rights of subrogation and the complexity for insurers in
determining whether to play a passive supportive role or
controlling active role in class actions. The decision has
significant implications in sharing the spoils of a class action
settlement between insured and uninsured losses with policyholders
receiving priority for their uninsured loss, despite not actually
paying out one dollar in funding litigation costs.
The case provides guidance on insurers' rights of subrogation in
the class action context and how s67 of the Insurance Contracts Act
(ICA) applies to class action settlements.
As a result of this decision, Insurers should carefully examine
subrogation and allocation clauses in their policies, particularly
first party indemnity insurances, and develop strategies for
adopting proactive roles in class action recoveries.
Background
In March 2017, two bushfires separately ignited in Terang and The
Sisters in regional Victoria. In March 2018, Andrew Francis issued
group proceedings as lead plaintiff in respect of The Sisters fire.
In April 2018, Anthony issued proceedings to recover losses arising
out of the Terang fire (the proceedings respectively). The
defendant is an electricity distributor that owned and managed
assets at each location of the respective fire's ignition. The
plaintiffs contended that the defendant breached its duties by
failing to design and maintain its electrical assets properly.
Some group members were insured for certain losses arising out of
the fires. Insurers registered an interest on behalf of 45 of 91
group members in the Lenehan proceedings. In the Francis
proceeding, one of the insurers registered their interest on behalf
of ten group members.
In 2020, the plaintiffs settled both proceedings, subject to Court
approval. As part of the settlement process, the plaintiffs' drew
up a distribution scheme, which would provide for distribution
between group members and between insured group members and their
insurers.
Insurance Australia Group (IAG), Allianz Australia Limited and QBE
Insurance (Australia) Ltd (the insurer) objected to that part of
the scheme that distributed money between insured group members and
their insurers. They disagreed with how the plaintiffs proposal to
allocate the settlement between them and their insureds.
The issue was the culmination of a long-running dispute between the
plaintiffs' lawyers and the insurers regarding their customers'
participation in the class actions. Ultimately the Insurers
instructed lawyers to pursue their own recovery class action of
both the insured and uninsured losses of their insureds. The
insurers agreed to fund their recovery action and (with some
limited exceptions) would assume liability for any adverse costs.
Letters were sent to the respective insureds asking them to opt-out
of the plaintiffs' class actions. However, some insureds chose not
to opt-out. The Insurers informed the plaintiffs that they would
not force those insureds to opt out of the proceeding, despite
their belief that they could. However, the insurers confirmed that
they still intended to recover insured losses suffered by the
insureds that chose to remain in the plaintiffs' class action
proceedings.
In February 2019, the Court made a class closure order in the
proceedings. The orders did not provide for discrete registration
of insured losses that the insurers sought to recover. The decision
not to include discrete registration was in contrast to other
bushfire class actions like the Black Saturday claims. A Notice
annexed to the class closure orders stated "[y]our insurance
company is required to register its own claim if it wishes to
recover from the defendant the amount of any insurance paid to
you."
On 18 March, the lawyers for the group members wrote to the
Insurers' lawyers and said that they considered the insurers'
payments to be registered and confirmed that the insurers would be
entitled to claim subrogated losses, subject to the terms of the
policies and the provisions of the ICA.
On 29 March, the plaintiffs filed the list of the registered group
members with the Court. The list did not include any insurers who
had purportedly registered their wish to recover via the
proceedings.
The proceedings settled in October 2019, subject to court approval.
Both the group members and the Insurers proposed mechanisms for the
allocation between the insured and uninsured losses.
The Group members proposed that after legal costs, administration
costs and a reimbursement payment to both Mr Francis and Mr
Lenehan, the remainder insured losses should be divided as
follows:
1. An Administrator would be appointed to determine whether the
Insurers were entitled to recover their losses.
2. The Administrator would make their determination having regard
to:
1. the terms of each Group Member’s policy of insurance;
2. the terms of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984;
3. any notice of submission from the Group Member’s insurer;
4. the instructions received from Group Members about the
distribution of their Assessed Entitlement; and
5. any other applicable legislation or case law.
3. If the Administrator determined that the Insurers were entitled
to recover their losses, then Administrator would pay the
appropriate amount to the relevant insurer.
The Insurers objected to the almost unfettered power of the
Administrator to allocate recovered funds. They also objected to
the requirement that the Administrator could regard the group
members' instructions concerning the distribution of the
entitlement. Finally, they objected to the proposed Administrator,
the lead solicitor for the plaintiffs, as he had in effect
prosecuted the case against the insurers on the very issue of
allocation.
Instead, the Insurers proposed a "pro-rata" approach. In their
scheme, the compensation pool would be divided between group
members and their registered insurers on a pro-rata basis, unless
the contract provided otherwise.
The plaintiffs rejected the Insurers' model. They offered an
amendment to allow for a binding review of the Administrator's
decision.
The Issue
Ultimately the issue between the parties became, who should be
considered the "recovering party" for the purpose of s67 of the ICA
or otherwise be given priority in allocating recovered proceedings.
When the recovering party was determined it would then be clear
which of the recovery methodologies in s67 would then apply:
If the insurer had recovered (ss2);
If the insured had recovered (ss3); or
If both the insurer and insured recovered (ss4-7).
Parties Submissions
The Insurers’ submitted that they were the recovering parties and
should receive priority under s 67(2). The insured group members
remained in the proceedings only because the Insurers permitted
them to do so; the Insurers were entitled to require their insureds
to opt-out of the proceedings but chose not to do so. Thus, it was
said that they took over the insured's recovery.
The plaintiff's submission was that subject to their contracts
otherwise providing, all insured group members were the recovering
parties and should receive priority of payment under s 67(3). The
Insurers did not recover the settlement monies and their
involvement in the proceeding was not an exercise of their rights
of subrogation.
Judge's Determination
The judge rejected the Insurers' submission they were the
recovering party and finding for the group members instead. The
settlement pool would be distributed, subject to any contrary
contractual term, by reference by 67(3).
The judge rejected the Insurers' submission that they had elected
not to exercise their rights to opt-out their insured. The Insurers
produced no evidence that they had such power or obtained any
agreement with any insured group member regarding the election. In
contrast, the plaintiffs took action by instructing lawyers,
commencing and then settling the proceeding. The judge considered
the Insurer's actions were "a non-exercise of contractual rights"
and the statutory language of ss67(2) required the insurer to
exercise their right of subrogation. The judge illustrated the
contrast as the difference between the existence of a right of
subrogation and the exercise of those rights. She confirmed that
for ss67(2) to apply the Insurers' conduct must focus on extracting
funds from the defendants, rather than from the insureds.
The judge also rejected the Insurers' submission that a settlement
at a discount requires a pro-rata distribution of recovered
proceedings. Her Honour determined, based on established precedent,
that the pro-rata approach was only appropriate in a settlement
where the insured had not given bona fide consideration of the
insurer's interest. There was no evidence to suggest that the
plaintiffs did not provide such consideration.
The only win for the insurers was Nichols J rejection of the
plaintiff's proposal regarding who should calculate the
distribution. Instead, of the plaintiffs' lawyer acting as
Settlement Administrator, the court directed independent counsel
should to determine the allocation of the recovered amounts between
group members and their insurers.
Analysis
This case is the first bushfire class action to consider the
application of s 67 of the ICA to a settlement distribution scheme
and radically changes the previous pragmatic approach adopted by
insurers of agreeing on pro-rata distribution between insureds and
their insurers. In our view, Her Honour has correctly applied the
statute to the circumstances, which saw the insurers permit
insureds to remain as group members in a no win no fee class
action. Whilst the insurers maintained that they had the right to
assume conduct under the terms of their policy, a central
consideration is whether policy terms properly address the position
of uninsured losses and how they will be treated in any subrogation
proceeding. Insurers will need to confront whether their existing
contractual rights are sufficient to commence a class action on
behalf of their insureds. Critical to this right will be whether
the policy of insurance contains a right on the part of insurers to
pursue subrogation claims including in respect of uninsured loss of
their customers.
In light of the Her Honour's conclusions insurers will need to be
proactive in proceedings. If insurers fail to do so, their right to
recover loss from a third party, will rank second to any uninsured
or underinsured loss of their customer. If a settlement is only
sufficient to cover uninsured losses, and the insurance contract is
silent on priority, insurers will miss out.
Insurers should conduct a review of all policy wordings with
subrogation conditions and consider whether the policy is of a type
which may involve Insurers in class action recovery. If the policy
falls within that class, then conditions addressing subrogation
rights and allocation of recovered funds need to be carefully
addressed. Insurers should also confirm that the policy provides a
specific contractual right to allow them to opt-out an insured from
a class action if required. With the introduction of the Unfair
Contract Term laws, Insurers need to also be careful not to
over-reach in the rights reserved to the insurer.
Whilst the case in issue was a bushfire class action, other class
actions seeking to recover loss including floods and financial loss
arising from the consequences of the current COVID-19 pandemic are
also likely to be impacted. Insurers will need to exercise
contractual rights and take positive steps to control subsequent
class action themselves rather than wait for a plaintiff law firm
to do so. It seems to us that inevitably subrogating insurers and
litigation funders will end up in battling out who should be the
controlling litigant and potentially we will see more competing
class actions in major tort claims. [GN]
[*] JND Legal Appoints Shandarese Garr as VP of Operations
----------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration (JND), a legal management and
administration services provider serving plaintiff and defendant
firms, corporations and government entities across five service
lines, hired Shandarese (Shandy) Garr as Vice President of
Operations. Ms. Garr has over 25 years of experience in class
action administration and was brought on by JND to keep pace with
the company's rapid case growth.
Ms. Garr has held many prominent roles over the course of her
distinguished legal administration career, including VP of
Securities at Garden City Group (GCG), as well as VP of Midwest
Operations at GCG. A strong proponent of consumer rights advocacy
and access to justice initiatives, Ms. Garr is a former
administrator for the National Association of Shareholder &
Consumer Attorneys (NASCAT) and has been a Mobilization for Justice
(MFJ) board member since 2016. While at GCG, Ms. Garr also served
as VP of Diversity & Inclusion for a term, where she organized
speakers, programs and other initiatives to bring awareness to the
workplace challenges facing minorities.
An expert in her field, Garr has played key roles in numerous
high-profile class action administrations, including the $6.15
billion WorldCom settlement and the $10 billion+ DeepWater Horizon
class action settlement. She was recognized by Profiles in
Diversity Journal as a recipient of its Diversity Leader Award in
2018 and was featured in a CNN article titled "What Changes with
Women in the Boardroom," (2013) along with JND founder and CEO,
Jennifer Keough.
The founders of JND -- Jennifer Keough, Neil Zola and David Isaac
-- have worked with Garr for much of her career and are excited
that she is bringing her talents to JND. "Having worked extensively
with Shandy before founding JND, I know the kind of dedication,
work ethic and expertise she brings to the team," says Neil Zola,
Executive Co-Chairman at JND. "Her diverse background in all
aspects of class action administration makes her a perfect fit for
JND. We are excited to continue to grow our claims administration
business with Shandy's expertise."
"JND has clearly established itself as the leader in this field,"
said Ms. Garr. "Having worked with Jennifer, Neil and David before,
I am not surprised. I am excited to work with them again. Their
firm is at the fore, doing the important, high-profile class action
administration work that I love. I can't wait to get involved."
Committed to recognizing talent and advancing opportunity for women
in the workplace, JND is the only legal administration firm in the
country with a woman CEO and woman CFO. Garr is the eighth woman
and second African American to join the ranks of JND's diverse
executive team.
About JND Legal Administration
JND Legal Administration -- http://www.JNDLA.com/-- is a legal
management and administration company trusted by law firms,
government agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation.
Founded in 2016 and led by industry veterans Jennifer Keough, Neil
Zola and David Isaac, JND delivers best-in-class legal services in
the areas of class action settlement administration, mass tort
claims and lien resolution, eDiscovery, legal notice programs,
government services and healthcare solutions. The company is backed
by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California, Minnesota,
New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.
*********
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 ***