/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210325.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 25, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 55
Headlines
ABARROTES MIXTECA: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NJWHL
ACCUCOM CORPORATION: Faces Azuz Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 27 Deadline
ALLIED WORLD: Wellington Athletic Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
APPLE INC: Quebec Consumer Protection Class Lawsuit Approved
AUSTRALIA: Katherine Residents Get Email Update in PFAS Lawsuit
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Gancarz Fraud Suit in N.D. New York
BENEFITFOCUS INC: Pittsburgh Sues Over Secondary Public Offering
BETFAIR INTERACTIVE: FanDuel Users File Class Action Lawsuit
BETFAIR INTERACTIVE: Melnick Sues Over Deceptive FanDuel Platform
BLACKBAUD INC: Judge Appoints Most Diverse Team to Lead MDL
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
CALIFORNIA: Faces Williams $50M Suit Over Alleged Wrongful Acts
CAPITAL SENIOR: Lawrence Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
CHISHOLM ENERGY: Arbitration & Dismissal Bids in Pogue Suit Denied
CLOVER HEALTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Vita Law Offices Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CVS HEALTH: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CYTODYN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 17 Deadline
DISTRESSED ASSET: Cosenza FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
EBIX INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
ECHO LAKE: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
EGM ELECTRIC: Rodon, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EHRMAN KITS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EVANSTON INSURANCE: Glacial Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
EXXON MOBIL: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of March 29 Deadline
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Amadin employment Suit in Calif. State Court
FINTECH ACQUISITION: Faces Pels Suit Over Stockholders Agreement
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for April 2022
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY: Valentin Seeks FLSA Conditional Cert.
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Bourgier Files Suit in S.D. Florida
HERRSCHNERS INC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IG DESIGN GROUP: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
INFINITY Q: Investor Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
KAISER PERMANENTE: Seeks Dismissal of ADA Class Action
KCS INTERNATIONAL: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KELLOGG COMPANY: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KONA LABELING: Class Action Settlements Reach $13.1 Million
KROGER COMPANY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jones Says
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Williams Putative Class Suit
LABORATORY CORP: Peterson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Ongoing
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Wage & Hour Suits Granted Final OK
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LOBSTER BAR: Navas Seeks Minimum Wages for Restaurant Servers
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Security Fraud
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline
MA MEDINA: Mayen Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Calif.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Socked With New Class Action Filed by Pembroke
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT: Faces Horton Civil Rights Suit in W.D. Mich.
MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Marlow Suit Denied
MJ LUCKY: Hinds Seeks Earned Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, MFWSA
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MONEYGRAM: Faces Class Action Over Ties to Ripple, XRP Securities
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MYLIFE.COM INC: Minn. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Finlay Suit
MYRIAD GENETICS: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
NASSAU, CA: Faces Markey Suit in New York Supreme Court
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Canale Files Suit in W.D. New York
NATURES FLAVORS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Krohnengold ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plans
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Service Reductions on Subway Line
NUTANIX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
ONTRAK INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
P.F. CHANG'S: 9th Cir. Reverses Krab Mix Class Action Dismissal
PAUL MILLER AUTO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Sued for Misappropriating Photographs in Ads
PLUG POWER: Pomerantz Law Remimds of May 7 Plaintiff Deadline
PRODUCTION FRAMING: Faces Lopez Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Blackshear Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia
PUBMATIC INC: Unlawfully Processes Personal Data, Elliott Says
QUANTUM GLOBAL: Federal Magistrate Judge Approves $174K Settlement
RAINIER BANK: Sued for Refusing to Honor Old Bonds
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Ramsey Suit Over Lack of Financial Info
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Schall Law Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SHRINIKA INVESTMENTS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Love Says
SIX FLAGS: Settlement in Credit Card Info Suit Gets Initial OK
SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Ongoing
ST. ANNE'S CREDIT: Souza Files FDCPA Suit in Massachusetts
T.D. BANK: New York Court Dismisses Manship Suit With Prejudice
TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED AMERICAN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: NCLA Files Class-Action Lawsuit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Moradpour Securities Suit Over Stock Drop
VELODYNE LIDAR: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
WHOLESOME SWEETENERS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WRITERS GUILD: Suit Claims "Sweetheart" Deal Between Viacom
XL FLEET: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
[*] 99 U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Approved in 2020
[*] Class-Action Settlements Hold Steady, Despite Pandemic
*********
ABARROTES MIXTECA: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA, NJWHL
-------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ABARROTES MIXTECA CORP. and GUILLERMO IGLESIAS, Case No.
2:21-cv-03924 (D.N.J., March 2, 2021) arises from the failure of
the Defendants to pay overtime pay to the Plaintiff and other
employees of Defendants in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The Plaintiff contends that throughout his employment by the
Defendants, he regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek
without being paid (a) for all hours worked, and (b) overtime at
the rate of time and one-half his regular hourly rate for all hours
in excess of 40 worked in a workweek.
The Defendants employed the Plaintiff from October, 2019, until on
or about December 30, 2020.
Abarrotes Mixteca is located in Maspeth, New York, and is part of
the restaurants industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Harrison, Esq.
HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOC., LTD
110 State Highway 35, 2 nd Floor
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (888) 239-4410
E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com
ACCUCOM CORPORATION: Faces Azuz Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accucom Corporation.
The case is captioned as Marilyn Azuz v. Accucom Corporation, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01182 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2021).
The lawsuit arises from personal property claims demanding $9.9
million in damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven
C. Seeger.
Accucom is located in Boston, Massachussets and is part of the
Managed Application & Network Services Industry. Acucom is doing
business as Infotracer.[BN]
Plaintiff Marilyn Azuz individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
NICK LARRY LAW LLC
8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (773) 694-4669
E-mail: nick@nicklarry.law
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc.
(NYSE: UAVS), Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ: IQDAX,
IQDNX), and Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR). Stockholders have
until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.
AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS)
Class Period: September 3, 2019 to February 18, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021
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.
For more information on the AgEagle class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/UAVS
Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ: IQDAX, IQDNX)
Class Period: December 21, 2018 to February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021
On February 22, 2021, Infinity Q filed a request with the SEC for
an order pursuant to Section 22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 suspending the right of redemption with respect to shares
of the Fund, effective February 19, 2021, because of Infinity Q's
inability to determine Fund Pricing, or Net Asset Value ("NAV").
The request also stated that the Fund was liquidating its portfolio
and distributing its assets to shareholders
The complaint, filed on February 26, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Infinity Q's Chief Investment
Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within the
third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the swaps
held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be able to
calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously reported
NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the Fund would
halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a result, the
prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
For more information on the Infinity Q class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/InfinityQ
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR)
Class Period: November 9, 2020 to February 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.
On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021.
Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%,
to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 2, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with
respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with the
Company's officers and directors; (2) that the Company was
investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Velodyne class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/VLDR
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
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.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Kaskela Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on March 3 disclosed 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: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 3 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE:UAVS)
publicly traded securities between September 3, 2019 and February
18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned
Lopez v. AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc., No. 21-cv-01810, and is
assigned to Judge Christina A. Snyder. The AgEagle Aerial class
action lawsuit charges AgEagle Aerial and certain of its executives
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased AgEagle Aerial publicly traded securities
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the AgEagle Aerial class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving
as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit,
please provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer
Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via
e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than April 27, 2021.
AgEagle Aerial is engaged in the design, engineering, and
manufacturing of commercial drones, as well as in providing drone
services and solutions to the agriculture industry. On September 3,
2019, AgEagle Aerial issued a press release entitled "AgEagle
Enters the Fast-Growing Commercial Drone Package Delivery Market,"
with a subtitle reading, "Initial Purchase Orders Received and
Testing Underway." Thereafter, on April 29, 2020, a video posted on
the personal website and YouTube channel of the daughter of AgEagle
Aerial's founder, defendant Bret Chilcott, showed how to safely
unbox the drones and included the logos of AgEagle Aerial and
Amazon side-by-side. News of this video led to widespread
speculation that AgEagle Aerial's "major unnamed ecommerce" partner
was in fact Amazon.
The AgEagle Aerial class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AgEagle Aerial 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 Aerial had a
partnership with Amazon; and (iii) as a result, defendants'
statements about AgEagle Aerial's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle Aerial, and in fact never did,
when the Wichita Business Journal published a story with the
headline "Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who
it's not," reporting that "the retail giant has put the rumor to
rest, with a company spokesperson telling the WBJ there is no
partnership and that Amazon, to date, has not worked with AgEagle
in any capacity."
Then, on February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report
stating that AgEagle Aerial "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated
by . . . AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and
other UAVS insiders to defraud US investors." On this news, shares
of AgEagle Aerial fell more than 36%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
ALLIED WORLD: Wellington Athletic Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
WELLINGTON ATHLETIC CLUB, LLC d/b/a/ SOUL FITNESS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED WORLD SURPLUS
LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00256-BJR (W.D. Wash.,
March 1, 2021) is a lawsuit filed to ensure that the Plaintiff and
other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance
benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid.
The Defendant issued one or more "all-risk" insurance policies to
Plaintiff (the Policy), which provide broad property and business
interruption coverage.
The Policy includes a Building and Personal Property Coverage Form
and related endorsements, with coverages that include Business
Income and Extra Expense, Extended Business Income, Civil
Authority, and a Coverage Extension and Special Property Coverage
Form, insuring Soul Fitness's property, business equipment and
machinery, and business income, with effective dates of July 1,
2019 to July 1, 2020.
The Policy described the insured occupancy of the premises as
falling under the "Business Description" of "Health or Exercise
Facilities."
The governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not permit
any operations or access to the premises consistent with "exercise
facilities."
The Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff for "direct physical loss
of or physical damage to" covered property, and its Policy includes
coverages for risks of both "loss of or damage to" covered
property.
According to the complaint, the Defendant denied coverage to
Plaintiff by letter dated May 11, 2020. The Defendant made no
meaningful investigation of Plaintiff’s claim or its loss. The
Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has denied all claims
submitted to it for business income coverage that relate to
governmental proclamations or orders and/or COVID-19.
Prior to the pandemic, at peak hours of operation, Soul Fitness
would have up to 100 persons working out at its facility at a time,
plus 6-10 staff members.
Plaintiff Soul Fitness owns and operates an exercise gym in Seattle
that offers a variety of standard and specialty gym equipment and
machines, such as treadmills, stationery bicycles, stair climbers,
hand weights, free weights, balls, mats, and punching bags, as well
as over thirty-five specially-curated fitness classes per week.
Defendant Allied World is an insurance carrier incorporated and
domiciled in Defendant Allied World is authorized or licensed to
write, sell, and issue business insurance policies in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia. The Defendant conducted business
within these states by selling and issuing business insurance
policies to policyholders, including the Plaintiff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
APPLE INC: Quebec Consumer Protection Class Lawsuit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Teddy Elliot at mtlblog.com reports that Quebec's Court of Appeal
has approved a class-action lawsuit against Apple, according to
multiple reports.
The plaintiffs claim that Apple violated part of Quebec's Consumer
Protection Act with product batteries that have a "limited
lifespan."
Why is there a class-action lawsuit against Apple?
"Consequently," law firm LPC Avocat Inc. writes online, "the
one-year warranty period offered to Quebec consumers is not a
reasonable length of time, having regard to the price paid and
intended use for Apple Products."
They also argue that Apple further violated the Act by not
informing AppleCare and AppleCare+ purchasers both "orally and in
writing" of "the existence and nature of [. . . ] Quebec's legal
warranty" outlined in two sections of the Act.
MTL Blog has reached out to Apple for a comment on this story. This
article will be updated when we receive a response.
Who is eligible to participate in the class action?
According to Narcity Québec, the first group includes all
customers who bought an iPhone since December 29, 2014.
The second group, according to LPC Avocat Inc., includes "all
consumers who, since December 20, 2015, purchased 'AppleCare' and /
or 'AppleCare +' for an Apple product, including an iPhone, Apple
Watch, iPad, iPod and / or MacBook and who were not informed of the
legal warranty under the Consumer Protection Act at the time of
purchase."
How much money is at stake?
The class action is seeking "punitive damages in the amount of
$300.00 per Class Member," according to the law firm.
Other possible damages are "to be determined."
"In Quebec, you are automatically included in the group if you meet
the definitions of authorized groups, so you don't have to do
anything. If one day there is a settlement or a favourable ruling,
we will notify everyone," said Joey Zukran of LPC Avocat Inc. to
Narcity Québec.
Members of the class action can sign up to receive updates online.
[GN]
AUSTRALIA: Katherine Residents Get Email Update in PFAS Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Fitzgerald, writing for Canberra Times, reports that
following months of delays, Katherine residents involved in the
class action against the Federal Government over PFAS contamination
to the town's drinking supply are expected to begin reciveing
settlement payments from March 4.
An email update received yesterday by Katherine residents involved
in a landmark class action against the Department of Defence over
PFAS contamination has everyone on the edge of their seats.
After months of delays, Shine Lawyers -- the firm representing the
class action clients of Katherine, Williamtown and Oakey -- said
settlement payments would start flowing into bank accounts on March
4.
The email contained final details on individual payments, with one
resident, who wished to remain anonymous, set to receive more than
$88,600.
The total amount was broken down into two distributions: an amount
for property diminution and an amount for inconvenience, distress
and vexation.
Around 2500 residents from Katherine who owned a property in the
investigation area -- the Katherine township -- as at November 23
2016, joined the legal action against the Federal Government
arguing for compensation over PFAS contamination and a subsequent
fall in property values.
Settled in court last year, Katherine, Williamtown and Oakey are to
share in $212.5 million, with Katherine receiving the highest
amount of $92.5 million.
Defence duly paid $92.5 million into a trust account for
distribution through Shine Lawyers which has been gathering
interest, however legal fees have slashed that figure almost in
half to just over $56 million.
Properties had become unsaleable and some residents estimated they
had lost at least a third in value of their property nest eggs due
to chemical contamination from the use of toxic fire fighting foams
once used at the Tindal RAAF Base adjacent to Katherine.
According to the email update, the high volume of group members in
Katherine will mean it is anticipated payment will take two to
three business days.
"We cannot guarantee when the funds will be received into your bank
account as it will depend on your bank," the update states.
For residents who opted to receive a cheque payment, these must be
deposited within 120 days of the date of issue.
The Katherine Town Council, which decided at a late stage to join
the action and as the biggest property owner is set to receive the
biggest payment from the settlement, has been contacted for
information on their portion of the settlement.
This story Residents involved in landmark PFAS class action have
payout confirmed first appeared on Katherine Times. [GN]
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Gancarz Fraud Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition
Company. The case is captioned as Kelsey Gancarz v. Beech-Nut
Nutrition Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00258-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., March
4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged fraud claims. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy.
Beech-Nut is a baby food company that is owned by the Swiss branded
consumer-goods firm Hero Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff Kelsey Gancarz individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 260-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
BENEFITFOCUS INC: Pittsburgh Sues Over Secondary Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PITTSBURGH COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PENSION TRUST FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
BENEFITFOCUS, INC., et al., Case No. 651425/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., March 2, 2021) asserts strict liability and negligence
claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to
Benefitfocus's secondary public offering commenced on March 1, 2019
of 6,560,472 shares of common stock, including an executed
underwriters' overallotment of 855,714 shares, at a price of $48.25
per share (the "SPO" or the "Offering").
This securities class action is brought on behalf of a Class of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Benefitfocus common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the SPO, and who were damaged
thereby.
Defendant Benefitfocus describes itself as a "leading cloud-based
benefits management platform" that "simplifies how organizations
and individuals transact benefits." The Company's broker customers
use its platform to manage employer portfolios; employer customers
use the platform to streamline benefit processes, control costs,
and keep up with regulatory requirements; and insurance carrier and
supplier customers use the platform to market offerings to
consumers, simplify billing, and improve the enrollment process.
On March 1, 2019, Benefitfocus conducted an SPO and the Selling
Stockholder Defendants -- including Mercer LLC, an entity related
to Mercer Health -- raised more than $316 million in gross
proceeds, while the banks that underwrote the Offering collected
over $9.4 million in fees. In other words, the SPO was a great
success for Defendants; however, the SPO was disastrous for
investors.
Just prior to and in connection with the SPO, Benefitfocus
disclosed it had amended the Mercer Health Agreement to, among
other things, take advantage of increased opportunities in the
broker channel. Benefitfocus claimed that any reduction in revenue
associated with the amended Mercer Health Agreement would be
limited to 2019 and would have no material impact on the Company's
financial condition and results, the suit says.
However, within months of the SPO, Benefitfocus disclosed
materially adverse and previously existing but undisclosed
conditions, trends, uncertainties, and risks at the Company that
pre-dated the SPO, including the complete runoff of significant,
recurring, high-margin Mercer Health revenues, significant losses
and earnings misses, and the inability to replace lost Mercer
Health revenues with new broker channel revenues.
As a result of these undisclosed adverse facts that existed at the
time of the Offering, Benefitfocus's common stock plummeted,
falling from its SPO price of $48.25 per share to close at $14.90
per share on March 2, 2020, the date this Action was filed, the
suit added.
City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund
purchased Benefitfocus common stock in the Offering from an
Underwriter Defendant pursuant and traceable to the Offering
Documents, and has been damaged thereby.
Defendant Benefitfocus, Inc. is the issuer of the shares sold in
the Offering. The Company is a leading U.S. cloud-based benefits
management platform and services provider.
The Defendants include THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., GS CAPITAL
PARTNERS VI PARALLEL, L.P., GS CAPITAL PARTNERS VI OFFSHORE FUND,
L.P., GS CAPITAL PARTNERS VI FUND, L.P., GS CAPITAL PARTNERS VI
GMBH & CO. KG, MERCER LLC, MARSH & MCLENNAN COMPANIES, INC., MERCER
CONSULTING GROUP, INC., MASON R. HOLLAND, JR., RAYMOND A. AUGUST,
JONATHON E. DUSSAULT, DOUGLAS A. DENNERLINE, JOSEPH P. DISABATO, A.
LANHAM NAPIER, FRANCIS J. PELZER V, STEPHEN M. SWAD, ANA M. WHITE,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RAYMOND
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., WEDBUSH SECURITIES, INC., AND FIRST
ANALYSIS SECURITIES CORPORATION.
The Defendants GS Group, GS&Co., the Goldman Funds, Mercer, MMC,
and Mercer Consulting are "Selling Stockholders" or the Selling
Stockholder Defendants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq.
Marco A. Duenas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
afatale@labaton.com
mduenas@labaton.com
BETFAIR INTERACTIVE: FanDuel Users File Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that on March 2,
Andrew Melnick sued Betfair Interactive US, LLC, doing business as
FanDuel Sportsbook, for allegedly providing inaccurate information
to customers while they made wagers on live sporting events on
FanDuel's digital platform. The Northern District of Illinois
complaint contended that users placing "Under" bets were misled by
inflated game clock readings and inexact score information, causing
wagers they placed to appear to be far better bets than they
actually were.
The complaint explained that FanDuel operates an on-line sports
gaming platform with a membership in excess of 6 million people
across Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana,
Iowa, Colorado, Tennessee, Virginia, and Michigan, where such
betting is legal.
On Feb. 28, Melnick began placing wagers on the FanDuel platform
focusing on men's NCAA college basketball. Reportedly, he made live
wagers on "Over/Unders," a sportsbook wager that predicts a number
in a given game, usually the combined score of the two teams. The
bettor will prevail if the actual game total is either higher or
lower than the platform offered over or under, the complaint
explained.
Melnick made wagers after the sporting events had begun based upon
FanDuel's allegedly false reporting of the game's remaining time
and, in some cases, the current scores of the live events. After
discovering the inaccuracies, Melnick purportedly contacted FanDuel
customer service to notify the company and seek a refund, but to no
avail. The lawsuit reported that FanDuel frequently understates the
time remaining in live sporting events between 5 and 35%, causing
the plaintiff and putative class members to lose money on bets that
they would not have made or would have made differently had the
defendant's app reported the information accurately.
Melnick is seeking to certify a class of FanDuel users who reside
in one of the ten states the company operates in and who placed an
"Under" wager during a live sporting event on the FanDuel platform
and app. The filing claims that through its deceptive practices,
FanDuel violated state consumer protection laws, committed breaches
of contract, and was unjustly enriched.
The plaintiff is represented by Voelker Litigation Group and Fox &
Fox S.C. [GN]
BETFAIR INTERACTIVE: Melnick Sues Over Deceptive FanDuel Platform
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW B. MELNICK, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BETFAIR INTERACTIVE US, LLC, d/b/a FANDUEL
SPORTSBOOK, an Illinois limited liability company, Case No.
1:21-cv-01178 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 2021) involves an unlawful
pattern and practice of unfair and deceptive trade practices on the
part of FanDuel, an on-line sports gaming platform with a
membership in excess of 6,000,000 people, spanning across 10
states, of providing materially false and misleading information to
customers while making wagers on live sporting events via its
digital platform.
Specifically, while purporting to provide its customers with
real-time, live sports game data, FanDuel regularly understates the
time remaining in a given live sporting event in order to induce
its customers to make wagers that they are more likely to lose,
and/or that are riskier, than if they were being provided accurate,
real-time information in connection with their live wagering, the
Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks both damages for himself, as well as the
Multi-State Class and, alternatively, for the State-Wide Classes or
sub-classes, and an order enjoining the further operation of the
FanDuel platform until its app as represented, accurately reflects
the time remaining in a given live sporting event.
On March 2, 2021, Melnick attempted to contact customer service of
FanDuel via telephone to notify FanDuel of the unfair and deceptive
acts and practices alleged herein and attempted to obtain a full
refund, all to no avail.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Voelker, Esq.
VOELKER LITIGATION GROUP
33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312) 870-5430
Facsimile: (312) 254-7666
E-mail: dvoelker@voelkerlitigationgroup.com
- and -
Randall B. Gold, Esq.
FOX & FOX, S.C.
111 E. Upper Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (608) 258-9588
E-mail: rgoldlaw@aol.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Judge Appoints Most Diverse Team to Lead MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that what has been
hailed as one of the most diverse leadership teams to lead a
multidistrict litigation docket, a group of eight women and four
men, including lawyers of color, will pilot class actions brought
over a data breach involving cloud management software firm
Blackbaud.
The appointment order did not come from just any judge. U.S.
District Judge J. Michelle Childs is a 2010 appointee of President
Barack Obama to the South Carolina bench. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn,
D-South Carolina, recently floated Childs' name as one to be
considered as a top pick for the U.S. Supreme Court. If a vacancy
is created and she is selected, Childs would be the first Black
woman to serve on the high court. That would fulfill a campaign
pledge of President Joe Biden. [GN]
BRADLEY UNIVERSITY: Doe Suit Removed to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bradley University, Case No.
21-L-00033 was removed from the Circuit Court of Peoria County,
Illinois, Law Divi, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois on March 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01096-SLD-JEH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Bradley -- https://www.bradley.edu/ -- is a private, university in
Peoria, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott J Helfand, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 341-9876
Fax: (312) 655-1501
Email: scott.helfand@huschblackwell.com
CALIFORNIA: Faces Williams $50M Suit Over Alleged Wrongful Acts
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAND WILLIAMS, individually, on behalf of himself, the general
public and on behalf of all other persons and class similarly
situated v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a public entity, individually, et
al., Case No. 21STCV08181 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 1,
2021) seeks damages in the sum of more than $50 million as a direct
and proximate result of the alleged wrongful acts and omissions of
the the Defendants pursuant to California statutory, decisional and
regulatory laws.
The Plaintiff also asks for an additional judgment against the
Defendants, each of them, jointly and severally, awarding him
statutory damages, general, special, punitive, compensatory,
treble, special and consequential damages, monetary, nominal,
exemplary, economical, non-economical damages and for cost of sui,
Pre-judgment interest, at the legal rate of 10% per annual from
June 21, 2017 thru June 3, 2018 for Attorney fees.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California residing in
Los Angeles.
The Defendants include CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a public entity, individually; RALPH M. DIAZ,
individually, and in his former official capacity as Secretary of
and for the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, from September 1, 2018 thru October 1, 2020
individually; SCOTT MICHAEL KERNAN, individually, and in his former
official capacity as Secretary of and for the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation, from January 1, 2016 thru August
31, 2018 individually; COUNTY OF VENTURA, a public entity,
individually; VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, as a Municipal
Corporation doing business in the County of Ventura, individually;
WILLIAM BILL AYUB, individually, and in his official capacity as
Sheriff in and for the County of Ventura since June 5, 2018
individually; GEOFF DEAN, individually, and in his former official
capacity as Sheriff in and for the County of Ventura since January
2011 thru November 9h, 2018 individually; VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT PERSONNELS individually; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, as a
Municipal Corporation Doing business in the County of Los Angeles
as a Public Entity Under Laws of and in the State of California,
individually; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a Municipal
Corporation Doing business in the County of Los Angeles as a Public
Entity Under Laws of and in the State of California, individually
LASD Deputy No. 1 JOHN DOE, individually, and in his official
capacity as a Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy, individually;
LASD Deputy No. 2 JOHN DOE, individually, and in his official
capacity as a Los Angele County Sheriff Deputy, individually;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION PERSONNELS,
individually; and DOES 1 through 200, inclusive.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
CAPITAL SENIOR: Lawrence Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MIKKHEL LAWRENCE, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. CAPITAL SENIOR LIVING,
INC., Case No. 2021L000267 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., March 2, 2021)
is a class action complaint against Capital Senior for violations
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Defendant operates senior living facilities throughout the
United States. During the time period relevant to this case, the
Defendant operated at least four senior living facilities in
Illinois.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from September 2019 to
December 2019 at the Defendant's Spring Meadows facility in
Naperville, Illinois.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant required him and other
workers to use a biometric time clock system to record their time
worked. The Defendant required him and other workers to scan their
fingerprints in the Defendant's biometric time clock each time they
started and finished working.
Unlike an employee identification number or employee identification
card, fingerprints are unique and permanent identifiers. By
requiring workers to scan their fingerprints to record their time,
instead of identification numbers or badges only, the Defendant
ensured that one worker could not clock in for another, the
Plaintiff adds.
As a result, Illinois restricted private entities, like the
Defendant, from collecting, storing, using, or transferring a
person's biometric identifiers and information without adhering to
strict informed-consent procedures established by the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
The Defendant collected, stored, used, and transferred the unique
biometric fingerprint identifiers, or information derived from
those identifiers, of Plaintiff and others similarly situated
without following the detailed requirements of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act. As a result, Defendant allegedly violated
the Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy
and security of the biometric identifiers and information of the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated workers, the Plaintiff
alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
- and -
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
CHISHOLM ENERGY: Arbitration & Dismissal Bids in Pogue Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY POGUE, Individually and on Behalf of all others
Similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHISHOLM ENERGY OPERATING, LLC,
Defendant, No. 2:20-cv-00580-KWR-KK (D.N.M.), Judge Kea W. Riggs of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration.
The case is a putative class action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act ("NMMWA"). The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and others
similarly situated overtime.
The Plaintiff signed an independent contractor agreement with
third-party DTC Energy Group, Inc., to perform services for DTC's
clients. DTC is an oilfield consulting firm. One of those clients
was Defendant. The Plaintiff now alleges that the Defendant
violated the FLSA and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay
him and others overtime. The Plaintiff was a well site supervisor
for the Defendant from July 2017 to December 2019.
On July 20, 2016, the Plaintiff through his limited liability
company entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement ("ICA")
with DTC. It provided that the Independent Contractor Agreement
effective July 20, 2016 is made by and between DTC and JKP
Consulting, LLC. The Plaintiff acknowledges said Services are
required to fulfill DTC's obligations to its client ("Client
Operator") as provided by separate contract. The agreement also
required the Plaintiff to carry certain insurance and required DTC
to provide commercial generally liability insurance per the
requirements of any contracts with the clients.
Finally, the Independent Contractor Agreement provided that it
would be construed "in accordance with the laws of the State of
Colorado, without giving effect to principles of conflict of laws.
Any dispute arising hereunder will be resolved by way of
confidential arbitration, in accordance with the Uniform
Arbitration Act, C.R.S. 13-22-201, et seq., said arbitration to be
conducted in the City and County of Denver, Colorado by a single
arbitrator, any award to be enforceable in any court of competent
jurisdiction."
DTC and Defendant entered into a Master Supply Agreement and work
order on June 29, 2017. The Master Supply Agreement is silent on
arbitration and provides that Texas law would apply. The work order
between DTC and the Defendant provided that DTC, as contractor,
would "consult with, advise, and provide supervisory and support
services to Company's VP of operations." It provided that DTC
would provide the Plaintiff "for purposes of well site
supervision." It provided that Contractor (DTC) would be paid
$1,700 per 12-hour shift, and that contractor would be expected to
work 14 consecutive days consisting of 12-hour shifts. Contractor
would be scheduled 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off. It also provided
that if contractor was required to work longer than 12 hours per
shift, Contractor would be paid at a rate of $142 per hour. It
finally provided that contractor would provide all equipment,
service, and supplies necessary to perform the work in a
professional, diligent and efficient manner
In turn, DTC completed a "new hire request form" for the Plaintiff.
It provided that he would serve as an independent contractor for
Chisholm Energy as a "Completions Supervisor." It also provided he
would be paid at a rate of $1585 but invoiced at $1,700 by DTC. It
also provided he would be paid $132 per hour of time over 12 hours
per day, and would be invoiced at $142.
The Plaintiff was paid through DTC. DTC charged the Defendant a
$1,700-day rate, and the Defendant received $1,585 per day. The
Plaintiff received an additional $132 per hour for hours worked
over 12. He received payment from DTC through is limited liability
company, JP Consulting LLC. The Plaintiff received a 1099-MISC
from DTC in 2017 and 2018 from DTC.
The Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint for (1) lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or
alternatively (2) failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). It also seeks to enforce the ICA arbitration clause
against the Plaintiff. At issue is whether the Defendant, a
non-signatory to the ICA, can enforce the arbitration clause under
the theories of (1) third-party beneficiary and (2) equitable
estoppel.
Motion to Dismiss
Judge Riggs believes that the the existence of an employee/employer
relationship under the FLSA is an element of the Plaintiff's
meritorious FLSA claim and does not implicate the Court's threshold
subject matter jurisdiction. She says the language does not
clearly state that the employer/employee relationship is
jurisdictional rather than an element of the claim. Therefore, she
applies Rule 12(b)(6) standards. Moreover, the Judge does not
consider the Defendant's documents because they were not attached
to the complaint or incorporated into it, and the Plaintiff does
not rely upon them to state his claim.
The Judge also agrees that the Plaintiff's detailed facts that he
was employed by the Defendant are more than sufficient to state a
claim. Factual allegations under Rule 8 need not be
hypertechnical. The Judge holds that the Plaintiff need only
provide a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief" to state plausible FLSA allegations.
Whether the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant is not
determined by contract, but the economic realities test. The
Defendant also disputes these allegations, which is not appropriate
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Lastly, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff adequately pled
willfulness such that the three-year statute of limitations may
apply.
Motion to Compel Arbitration
The Defendant also seeks to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his
claims. There is no arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff
and the Defendant. Nevertheless, the Defendant, a non-signatory,
seeks to enforce an arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and
DTC. The Defendant asserts it can enforce the arbitration
agreement even though it is a non-signatory through the state-law
theories of (1) third-party beneficiary and (2) equitable
estoppel.
The Judge disagrees. She holds that the arbitration clause does
not reference at all arbitration with non-signatories, such as
DTC's clients. Therefore, she concludes that the arbitration
agreement does not clearly and unmistakably delegate arbitration of
arbitrability between Plaintiff and the non-signatory the
Defendant. Significantly, the Tenth Circuit has compelled
arbitration of arbitrability for signatories but did not do so for
non-signatories, citing Belnap v. Iasis Healthcare, 844 F.3d 1272,
1293 (10th Cir. 2017).
The Judge then examines whether the matter is arbitrable. She
finds it significant that although the ICA references DTC's
clients, it omits any reference to clients in the arbitration
provision. There is nothing in the arbitration provision
indicating that the parties intended that the Defendant would be a
beneficiary of the arbitration provision or have the right to
enforce the arbitration provision. The Judge finds that the
omission was likely purposeful. DTC and the Defendant did not have
an arbitration agreement.
The fact that clients are referenced in other parts of the ICA is
does not mean that the Plaintiff intended to directly benefit
clients in the arbitration provision. Moreover, the fact that in
another agreement DTC may have agreed to indemnify the Defendant is
not dispositive of the intent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to
grant clients the benefit of arbitration. Hence, there is no
indication that the Plaintiff and DTC intended to grant clients or
the Defendant the right to enforce the arbitration agreement.
Finally, the Judge declines to equitably estop the Plaintiff under
either Colorado or New Mexico law. First, the Defendant has not
established that the Plaintiff knew the Defendant would be covered
by the arbitration agreement. Second, there is nothing that
persuasively shows that the Plaintiff intended for Defendant to
believe it was covered by the arbitration agreement. Third, the
Defendant argues it was not aware of the wording of the agreement's
arbitration provision. But it also points to nothing that
persuasively suggests it believed any claim by the Plaintiff would
be covered by arbitration. And, although the ICA may be referenced
in the case by the Defendant as evidence under the economic
realities test, the Plaintiff does not rely on that contract in
asserting his FLSA claims.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Riggs denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zfupj4f from
Leagle.com.
CLOVER HEALTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC)
Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the
December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-clover-health-investments-corp-securities-litigation
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 companies 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.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Vita Law Offices Reminds of April 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vita Law Offices, P.C. on March 3 disclosed that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV) ("Clover") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Clover publicly traded
securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and/or purchased or acquired Clover
securities pursuant or traceable to Clover's registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger.
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Clover
publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later
than April 6, 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 Vita Law
Offices P.C: Richard J. Vita, Esq. (617)512-6566; via e-mail at
RJV@vitalwa.com.
According to the complaint, Clover provides health insurance
services. Clover was taken public through a reverse merger with
IPOC, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (the "Business
Combination"). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. The Class Period commences on October
6, 2020, when Clover issued a press release announcing its
intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC. On
October 20, 2020, Clover filed its registration statement and
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus on a Form S-4 with the SEC
(the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was
amended on December 9, 2020 and December 10, 2020, and was declared
effective on December 11, 2020. The Registration Statement touted
Clover's growth as strong and organic.
On February 4, 2021, before market hours, Hindenburg Research
published a research report that revealed that Clover's flagship
platform, Clover Assistant, was the subject of a U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") investigation for a variety of issues, including
illegal kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed
related-party transactions. Hindenburg discovered that Clover's
sales growth was not driven by technology, but by deceptive sales
practices. Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell
$1.72 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February
4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5%,
to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021.
On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, Clover filed a Form
8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation and
requesting document and data preservation for the period from
January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that
are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." Following this
news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3%
during intraday trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.28 per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on
February 5, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from illegal kickbacks, to marketing
practices, to undisclosed related-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, 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 sales were from an
undisclosed relationship between Clover and a brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) as a result, the
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
Clover investors may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Vita Law Offices, P.C., 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.
Vita Law Offices P.C. 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.
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 Vita Law Offices, P.C.
CONTACT:
Richard J. Vita, Esq.
Vita Law Offices P.C.
100 State Street Ste 900
Boston, MA 02109
617-512-6566, 617-426-6566
rjv@vitalaw.com [GN]
CVS HEALTH: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Barker, Esq., Viktors Dindzans, Esq., Morgan Mordecai, Esq.,
Jacob Raver, Esq., and Nicholas Reider, Esq., of Goodwin, in an
article for JDSupra, report that on February 11, 2021, in City of
Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust, et al.
v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Judge Mary S. McElroy of the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
dismissed a putative securities class action lawsuit filed by
stockholders of CVS Health Corporation ("CVS") alleging that CVS
misled investors about long-term care ("LTC") pharmacy struggles
following a 2015 merger with Omnicare, Inc. ("Omnicare").
Plaintiffs alleged that CVS and its executives made false and
misleading statements in the company's financial reports,
conference calls, and press releases in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, to hide the fact that CVS's LTC business
was struggling due to alleged mismanagement of Omnicare.
Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that CVS failed to disclose that
its financial condition was deteriorating and made misleading
statements concerning its performance and the success of its
operations, its customer losses, and its goodwill assessments for
its LTC business. Plaintiffs alleged that CVS was motivated to
mislead investors because it wanted to ensure the success of a
contemplated future acquisition of Aetna, Inc.
The court found that CVS's statements and omissions were not
actionable and granted defendants' motion to dismiss in full. The
court found CVS's statements regarding its performance and
operations, such as those characterizing CVS as a "leader" and
describing the success of the acquisition, to be non-actionable
puffery, opinion, and forward-looking statements. Similarly, the
court ruled that CVS's statements and alleged omissions concerning
its customer retention were not misleading, because those
statements were not quantified or specific, and did not imply that
CVS's customer base was growing. Finally, the court held that CVS's
goodwill assessments for its LTC business were non-actionable
statements of opinion. Plaintiffs alleged that the statements were
actionable despite being opinion-based under the Supreme Court's
decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus.
Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015), because they omitted material
underlying facts. The court disagreed, holding that plaintiffs
failed to adequately plead that defendants knew of facts rendering
CVS's goodwill assessment misleading, and that, in any event, CVS
disclosed the challenges to its LTC business that ultimately led to
a goodwill impairment, so any omission did not render the
assessments materially misleading.
In dismissing the action, the court also denied plaintiffs' request
for leave to further amend the complaint.
SEC DIVISION OF CORPORATION FINANCE SUGGESTS COMPANIES ISSUE
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES WHEN RAISING CAPITAL DURING PERIODS OF
MARKET VOLATILITY
On February 8, 2021, the staff of the SEC's Division of Corporation
Finance issued guidance and a sample letter to companies regarding
the need for robust disclosures in connection with offerings during
periods of high market and stock volatility. The staff noted that
securities offerings during periods with recent stock run-ups, high
short interest or reported short squeezes, or reports of atypical
retail investor interest present significant risks, to both issuers
and investors. The staff emphasized that a company seeking to raise
capital in such volatile circumstances should make specific,
tailored disclosures concerning market events and conditions, the
company's circumstances, and potential risks to investors. Such
disclosures are necessary to comply with disclosure obligations
under the federal securities laws and to ensure investors can make
informed investment decisions.
The staff also appended a sample letter containing comments that
the Division of Corporation Finance might issue to companies
seeking to raise capital in the midst of market and price
volatility, and urged companies to take its sample comments into
consideration when preparing and issuing offering disclosures. This
recent guidance underscores the need for companies to take
particular care during periods of volatility.
OHIO FEDERAL COURT DECLINES TO DISMISS DERIVATIVE SUIT AGAINST
CARDINAL HEALTH DIRECTORS STEMMING FROM ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT
DURING OPIOID CRISIS
On February 8, 2021, in In Re: Cardinal Health, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio denied a motion to dismiss filed by
current and former directors of Cardinal Health Inc. ("Cardinal"),
one of the largest pharmaceutical distributors in the country, in a
derivative lawsuit brought by stockholders of Cardinal. Plaintiffs'
complaint alleges that members of Cardinal's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by passively managing the company
despite alleged "red flags" concerning the company's controls
against the diversion of controlled substances beginning as early
as 2007, and by failing to properly oversee the company and protect
it from liability resulting from the opioid crisis.
In seeking dismissal, defendants highlighted that plaintiffs had
not made a pre-suit demand, and argued that the complaint failed to
adequately plead that such a demand would have been futile. Much
like Delaware law, under Ohio law a stockholder must either make a
pre-suit demand or plead facts showing that demand is excused,
including on grounds of futility (e.g., where a majority of the
company's directors face a "substantial likelihood of liability"
from the claims). Under Ohio law, a director can be liable for
breach of fiduciary duty in a failure of oversight case if a
plaintiff shows that the director ignored "red flags" that were
actually brought to his or her attention—a standard comparable to
the Delaware case law flowing from In re Caremark Int'l Inc. Deriv.
Litig., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996). Defendants argued that the
complaint failed to allege that any of the individual defendants
had actual knowledge of any "red flags" or stood to gain anything
by engaging in the alleged wrongdoing.
The court disagreed. It held that the complaint alleged sufficient
facts—with the help of pre-suit information plaintiffs obtained
from the company under Ohio's books and records
statute—supporting an inference that the individual defendants
had actual knowledge of "red flags" related to Controlled
Substances Act compliance. For example, the complaint highlighted
at least 53 instances in which the board or one of its committees
met to discuss, or were informed of, important information
concerning compliance risks or other issues attendant to Cardinal's
distribution of opioids. Plaintiffs contend Cardinal's Board failed
to heed these warning signs and continued to permit the Company to
make sales of opioids to retailers without ensuring compliance with
federal laws and regulations, which ultimately made the Company the
target of more than 1,000 lawsuits alleging knowing participation
in the opioid epidemic.
In response to defendants' arguments that plaintiffs failed to
allege that defendants had a motive to violate their fiduciary
duties, the court noted that motive is not a requirement in a
failure of oversight case, but merely one possible component of a
properly pleaded complaint. The court also held that plaintiffs'
allegations against defendants as a group were sufficient, as the
complaint was supported by Cardinal's books and records and, read
holistically, provided sufficient notice as to which individual
defendants were on notice of "red flags," and when. Finally, the
court held that it could not infer, at the pleading stage, that
defendants responded appropriately to the red flags, observing that
the "evidence may bear out that the Individual Defendants acted in
accordance with their fiduciary duties, but all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in favor of plaintiffs at this stage in
the litigation."
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT STRIKES VOLKSWAGEN'S "UNCLEAN HANDS"
DEFENSE IN SEC ENFORCEMENT ACTION
On February 4, 2021, in United States Securities and Exchange
Commission v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft et al., Judge Charles
R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the SEC's motion to strike Volkswagen's ("VW")
"unclean hands" affirmative defense, as asserted in VW's amended
answer.
Filed in March 2019, the SEC's civil enforcement action involves
securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 17(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that VW and its
former CEO violated the federal securities laws by selling
corporate bonds and asset-backed securities without disclosing that
VW was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to sell diesel-powered
vehicles with "defeat devices," designed to evade emissions test
procedures. Specifically, the SEC alleges that, prior to VW's
conduct becoming publicly known in September 2015, VW sold over $8
billion in bonds without disclosing the existence of the "defeat
devices," or U.S. regulatory investigations into VW's conduct, or
the scope of the Company's legal exposure.
VW filed an amended answer, in which it asserted an "unclean hands"
defense predicated primarily upon the SEC's failure to bring suit
until March 2019, despite its much earlier knowledge of the conduct
at issue and the voluminous litigation that flowed from it. VW
asserted that this delay was unreasonable and prejudicial,
including because the delay inflated VW's potential pre-judgment
interest exposure.
The SEC moved to strike the "unclean hands" defense, arguing that
VW failed to meet the "high bar" necessary to demonstrate that the
SEC engaged in egregious misconduct prior to filing the lawsuit.
The SEC also argued that VW had suffered no prejudice due to its
delay, and countered that it would suffer prejudice if forced to
litigate VW's unclean hands defense.
The court granted the SEC's motion to strike. Assuming, without
deciding, that a private party defendant may assert an unclean
hands defense in an SEC enforcement action, the court held that
undue delay, without more, is insufficient to establish unclean
hands. The court further held that the company's allegations that
the SEC "acted wrongfully, willfully, in bad faith, [and] with
gross negligence" were mere legal conclusions devoid of required
factual support.
DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY HOLDS BUYER WAIVED RIGHT TO POST-CLOSING
ADJUSTMENT BY FAILING TO TIMELY DELIVER CLOSING STATEMENT
On February 1, 2021, in Schillinger Genetics, Inc. v. Benson Hill
Seeds, Inc., Vice Chancellor Zurn of the Delaware Court of Chancery
ruled that a buyer in a private M&A transaction had breached the
parties' Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA") by failing to deliver a
required closing statement as part of the purchase price adjustment
process until months after the statement was due. The court
determined that the buyer waived the right to a post-closing
adjustment in its favor as a result of the breach.
Schillinger Genetics, Inc. ("Schillinger")—the seller—is an
Iowa corporation that previously engaged in soybean research and
breeding. Benson Hill Seeds, Inc. ("Benson Hill")—the buyer—is
a Delaware-incorporated "crop improvement company." The parties'
dispute arose out of a transaction through which Benson Hill
acquired substantially all of Schillinger's assets in exchange for
$14,000,000, subject to certain adjustments. The post-closing
adjustment process contemplated that Schillinger would provide an
"estimated closing statement" containing estimates of its accounts
payable at closing, and Benson Hill would provide its own closing
statement within 90 days of closing. Under the agreement,
Schillinger was afforded 20 days after receipt of the closing
statement to submit a notice of dispute should it disagree with
Benson Hill's calculations. Benson Hill failed to submit its
closing statement until two months after the deadline, and after
repeated inquiries from Schillinger. The APA specified that if
Schillinger did not submit a dispute notice within 20 days after
receiving the closing statement, Schillinger would be deemed to
have accepted Benson Hill's closing statement, but the APA was
silent about the consequences if Benson Hill were to miss the
closing statement deadline. The court held that the appropriate
remedy for Benson Hill's delay was the forfeiture of its right to a
post-closing adjustment, reasoning that to hold otherwise would
reward Benson Hill's breach. [GN]
CYTODYN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Western District of Washington on
behalf of purchasers of CytoDyn, Inc. (OTC:CYDY) common stock
between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case is captioned Lewis v. CytoDyn, Inc., No.
21-cv-05190, and is assigned to Judge Benjamin H. Settle. The
CytoDyn class action lawsuit charges CytoDyn and certain of its
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased CytoDyn common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the CytoDyn class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the CytoDyn class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the CytoDyn class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the CytoDyn class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the CytoDyn class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the CytoDyn class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the CytoDyn class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 17,
2021.
CytoDyn is a biotechnology company focused on the development and
commercialization of a drug named "Leronlimab" which has long been
promoted as a potential therapy for HIV patients.
The CytoDyn class action lawsuit alleges that since the beginning
of the global COVID-19 pandemic, CytoDyn has begun to aggressively
tout Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19. Consequently, after
CytoDyn's pivot to hyping Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19,
CytoDyn's stock price rose exponentially. The CytoDyn class action
lawsuit further alleges that while CytoDyn's stock price was
sufficiently pumped with the COVID-19 cure hype, defendants dumped
millions of shares at artificially inflated prices. Moreover, the
CytoDyn class action lawsuit alleges that CytoDyn also engaged in a
wrongful scheme with its lender, Iliad Research and Trading L.P.
and its principal John Fife whereby Iliad and other Fife entities
operated as an unregistered securities dealer for CytoDyn. In
connection with Iliad lending funds to CytoDyn, Iliad obtained a
convertible promissory note from CytoDyn and converted the note
into newly issued shares of CytoDyn and sold those shares into the
public market at a profit, in alleged violation of the dealer
registration requirements of the federal securities laws.
On August 26, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that, despite
earlier representations, CytoDyn was not being considered for
Operation Warp Speed. According to a senior administration official
interviewed by The Wall Street Journal, "CytoDyn had only completed
a preliminary qualification for being included in the initiative."
On this news, the price of CytoDyn shares dropped more than 17%
over the next two trading days.
Then, on September 3, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") filed a lawsuit against Iliad, Fife, and certain
Fife-related entities, calling Fife a "recidivist violator of the
federal securities laws." Specifically, the SEC alleged that Iliad
and its related entities operated as unregistered securities
dealers in violation of the federal securities laws by buying
convertible promissory notes, converting the notes into newly
issued shares of stock, then rapidly selling those shares into the
public at a profit.
Thereafter, on November 10, 2020, CytoDyn entered into an amended
$28.5 million Secured Convertible Promissory Note with Fife's
company, Streeterville Capital LLC, a related entity that was not
specifically named in the SEC action against Iliad and Fife. On
this news, the price of CytoDyn's shares fell.
Finally, on March 5, 2021, and continuing over the weekend, CytoDyn
issued a flurry of press releases describing the results of Phase
IIb/III data on Leronlimab. Hidden in press releases with titles
like "Cytodyn to File Accelerated Rolling Review with MHRA and
Interim Order (IO) with Health Canada for COVID-19" and "Cytodyn's
Phase 3 Trial Demonstrates Safety, a 24% Reduction in Mortality and
Faster Hospital Discharge for Mechanically Ventilated Critically
Ill COVID-19 Patients Treated with Leronlimab," however, was a
disclosure that the primary endpoint of the study -lowering all -
cause mortality at Day 28 - was not statistically significant.
Following the flurry of press releases, CytoDyn was accused of
"massaging the data" and squeezing good news out of a failed study,
the results of which CytoDyn reportedly sat on pending regulatory
discussions. On this news, the price of CytoDyn's shares fell more
than 28%, further damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information. [GN]
CYTODYN INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
securities and consumer rights litigation firm, announced that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn"
or the "Company") and Chief Executive Officer Andy Heyward
(collectively, "Defendants").
The action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington and captioned Lewis v. CytoDyn,
Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05190, asserts claims under Sec10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Sec78j(b), and 78t(a), on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of CytoDyn (sold under the ticker
symbol "CYDY" on the OTCQB Venture Market in the United States)
from March 27, 2020 through March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and who were damaged thereby.
CytoDyn is a publicly traded biotechnology company focused on the
development and commercialization of a drug named Leronlimab.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning
Leronlimab being used as a treatment for Covid-19.
Beginning on March 5, 2021 CytoDyn began issuing press releases
that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing data. In these
releases, CytoDyn disclosed that the primary endpoint for the
Leronlimab study (all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not
statistically significant. Upon the opening of trading, CytoDyn
shares dropped over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On
March 9, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at
$2.35.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 59 days from the date of this notice, by May 17, 2021.
Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.
If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Plaintiff's counsel, Joe Pettigrew of Scott+Scott, at (844)
818-6982 or via email at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in
prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights
actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension
funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with
offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California,
Ohio, and Virginia. [GN]
DISTRESSED ASSET: Cosenza FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shawn Cosenza, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Distressed Asset Portfolio III,
LLC, Unifund CCR, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-306 was removed from the
Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00487-RDM to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Unifund CCR -- http://www.unifund.com/-- is a company that buys
defaulted debts from other creditors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett M. Freeman, Esq.
Carlo Sabatini, Esq.
SABATINI FREEMAN, LLC
216 N. Blakely St.
Dunmore, PA 18512
Phone: (570) 341-9000
Email: bfecf@bankruptcypa.com
ecf@bankruptcypa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas J. Godfrey, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
1300 Six PPG Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 288-5861
Fax: (412) 281-5055
Email: nicholas.godfrey@dinsmore.com
EBIX INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on March 3
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than April 23, 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.
Ebix 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 Ebix Securities Class Litigation
Ebix, headquartered in Johns Creek, Georgia, supplies
infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial, travel, cash
remittances, and healthcare industries. The action alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that (1)
there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business
purpose of certain 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; and (3) Ebix's independent auditor was
likely to resign over disagreements with the Company over $30
million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account
of Ebix's outside legal counsel.
On February 19, 2021, following the close of the market, Ebix
announced the sudden resignation of its independent auditor, RSM US
LLP ("RSM"), which had been "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." These "significant
unusual transactions" were connected to Ebix's gift card business
in India which was a critical part of Ebix's portfolio. In
addition, RSM disclosed that "management did not design or
implement the necessary procedures and controls over the gift or
prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or
detect a material misstatement." The Company and RSM also allegedly
disagreed over whether to classify $30 million that had been
transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel in December 2020 as cash on Ebix's balance sheet. On this
news, Ebix's stock price fell $20.24 per share, or approximately
40%, from its closing price of $50.74 on February 21, 2021, to
close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
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."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ECHO LAKE: Faces Nisbett ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Echo Lake Industries
Ltd. The case is captioned as Kareem Nisbett v. Echo Lake
Industries Ltd., Case No. 1:21-cv-01876-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 3,
2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan.
Echo Lake Industries Inc is an apparel and fashion company based
out of 170 Express St, Plainview, New York.[BN]
Plaintiff Kareem Nisbett, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
EGM ELECTRIC: Rodon, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO RONDON, JORGE MARTINEZ, JUAN DAVID PUERTA ALLAN E.
MORALES, BRIAN AGUDELLO, and PARMAESHWAR MOHAN On Behalf Of
Plaintiffs And Similarly Situated Individuals v. EGM ELECTRIC NYC,
LLC, EGM ELECTRIC, LLC, MICHAEL ESPINOSA, and DAVID MUNOZ, Case No.
1:21-cv-01880 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2021) alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals are entitled to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages at the minimum wage rate,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs work for the Defendants as electrician and plumber.
EGM is a general contractor serving New Jersey and New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
Imran Ansari, Esq.
AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
546 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 486-0011
E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com
EHRMAN KITS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ehrman Kits Limited.
The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Ehrman Kits Limited, Case No. 1:21-cv-01441
(E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ehrman Kits Limited -- https://www.ehrmantapestry.com/ -- offers
imaginative and stylish needlepoint kits featuring designs by Kaffe
Fassett, Beth Russell and many more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
EVANSTON INSURANCE: Glacial Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
GLACIAL CRYOTHERAPY LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-00266 (W.D. Wash., March 2, 2021) is a lawsuit filed to
ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.
The Defendant issued one or more "all-risk" insurance policies to
Plaintiff (the Policy), which provide broad property and business
interruption coverage.
The Policy includes a Building and Personal Property Coverage Form
and related endorsements, with coverages that include Business
Income and Extra Expense, Extended Business Income, Civil
Authority, and a Coverage Extension and Special Property Coverage
Form, insuring Soul Fitness's property, business equipment and
machinery, and business income, with effective dates of July 1,
2019 to July 1, 2020.
The Policy described the insured occupancy of the premises as
falling under the "Business Description" of "Health or Exercise
Facilities."
The governmental response to the COVID-19 pandemic did not permit
any operations or access to the premises consistent with "exercise
facilities."
According to the complaint, the Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff
for "direct physical loss of or physical damage to" covered
property, and its Policy includes coverages for risks of both "loss
of or damage to" covered property. The Defendant allegedly denied
coverage for Plaintiff’s claim by telephone conversation with the
Plaintiff on March 27, 2020.
Plaintiff Glacial Cryotherapy is a physical health and wellness
business that provides cryotherapy, light therapy, and infra-red
sauna therapy using sophisticated machines and high-tech equipment
to deliver therapeutic treatments to the body.
Evanston operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers property
and casualty insurance products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq.
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Alison Chase, Esq.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com
EXXON MOBIL: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of March 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon" or the
"Company") (NYSE: XOM) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, and docketed under 21-cv-000194, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired Exxon securities
between November 6, 2019 and January 14, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Exxon securities during the
Class Period, you have until March 29, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Exxon explores for and produces crude oil and natural gas in the
U.S. and abroad. One of the Company's most important oil and gas
properties is in the Permian Basin, which is currently the
highest-producing oil field in the U.S.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) Exxon forced its employees to use unrealistic
assumptions regarding the timelines for well drilling in the
Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing assumptions served to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's well operations in
the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when revealed,
subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation
and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On January 15, 2021, pre-market, the Wall Street Journal published
an article entitled "Exxon Draws SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset
Valuation." The article reported that the SEC probe stemmed from a
whistleblower complaint that, during a 2019 internal assessment,
workers were forced to use unrealistic assumptions about how
quickly wells in the Permian Basin could be drilled to reach a
higher valuation, and that at least one worker who complained about
the assumptions was fired.
On this news, Exxon's stock price fell $2.42 per share, or 4.81%,
to close at $47.89 per share on January 15, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
FEDEX GROUND: Faces Amadin employment Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fedex Ground Package
System, Inc. The case is captioned as Mathew Amadin v. Fedex Ground
Package System, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00295740-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super., Sacramento Cty., March 4, 2021).
The case is brought over alleged employment-related issues.
Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.[BN]
The Plaintiff on behalf of all others similarly situated is
represented by:
Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENT BRADBURY
2999 Douglas Blvd., Ste. 180
Roseville, CA 95661-4219
Telephone: (916) 960-2080
E-mail: kb@castleemploymentlaw.com
FINTECH ACQUISITION: Faces Pels Suit Over Stockholders Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PELS, directly on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated as to some claims and as to other claims
derivatively on behalf of FINTECH ACQUISITION CORP. IV v. FINTECH
ACQUISITION CORP. IV, BETSY Z. COHEN, DANIEL G. COHEN, BRITTAIN
EZZES, MADELYN ANTONCIC, LAURA S. KOHN, JAN ROCK ZUBROW, PETER A.
WEINBERG, JOSEPH R. PERELLA, ROBERT K. STEEL, DIETRICH BECKER,
ANDREW BEDNAR, JORMA OLLILA, IVAN G. SEIDENBERG, JANE C. SHERBURNE,
PWP PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, LP, and PERELLA WEINBERG PARTNERS, LLC,
and FINTECH ACQUISITION CORP. IV, Case No. 2021-0184 (Del. Ch.,
March 2, 2021) contends that the Fintech Board's refusal to take
remedial action regarding the Stockholders Agreement on February
12, 2021 is wrongful as the Stockholders Agreement is plainly
unlawful, ultra vires, contrary to Delaware law, including DGCL
141(a) and is forbidden by case law regarding similar agreements.
According to the complaint, because the Founding Group is engaged
in the business of forming multiple SPACs, starting one and then
quickly moving on to the next, it acted with lightning speed to
find a business partner for FinTech. After just three months as a
public company, FinTech on December 30, 2020 announced a "business
combination" with a group of person and entities who control the
investment advisory boutique known as Perella Weinberg. FinTech
filed a preliminary Proxy (the "Preliminary Proxy" or "Prelim.
Pr.") relating to the Business Combination on February 5, 2021.
As to the Preliminary Proxy, if not corrected by the time the final
Proxy Statement is issued, it will mislead shareholders as to the
Corporate Opportunity Doctrine waiver, and multiple other matters
described herein. Moreover, the waiver sought is invalid, as it
does not comply with the specificity requirements of DGCL 122 (17),
the Plaintiff alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks individually and derivatively, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief, and declaratory relief preventing
implementation of the Stockholders Agreement and the Corporate
Opportunity Doctrine waiver, and further seeks the deferment of any
vote on the Business Combination until such time as the Company has
disseminated a complete and accurate Proxy.
Defendant FinTech is a Delaware corporation, formed as a SPAC, with
a particular purpose to locate a merger partner or acquisition
target in the financial services industry. The Individual
Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange Street, Ste. 1120
Wilmington, DE 19899-1680
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
- and -
Emily Komlossy, Esq.
KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 842-2021
Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
- and -
Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq.
THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C.
208 East 51 st Street, Suite 380
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 685-0969
E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for April 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in the
consolidated Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases, is set to
commence on April 1, 2022.
On April 6, 2020, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, a
company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
captioned Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for
Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities
intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
Company.
On May 13, 2020, GLAIC was also named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Ronald L. Daubenmier,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company.
On June 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to consolidate
the two cases. On June 30, 2020, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order consolidating
the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases.
On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected
policyholders to an unlawful and excessive cost of insurance
increase.
The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract
and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million.
On August 31, 2020, we filed an answer to plaintiffs' consolidated
complaint.
The trial is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2022.
Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this
action."
Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY: Valentin Seeks FLSA Conditional Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASENIA VALENTIN, ET AL.,
On Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, v.
GOODFELLOWS OF PASCO COUNTY, INC. D/B/A BRASS FLAMINGO, Case No.
8:21-cv-00190-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying this action and for
court-authorized
notice pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA");
2. approving the proposed notice of this action and the consent
and opt-in forms;
3. directing a production of names, last known mailing
addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses,
and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within 15
days of the Order;
4. directing the Plaintiffs to to distribute the Notice and
Opt-
in Form via first class mail, text message, and email to all
putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified
collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 30-days after
the initial mailing to all non-responding putative
plaintiffs; and
5. requiring the Defendant to post the Notice and Consent Form
in a conspicuous location within the dressing room at the
Brass Flamingo Gentlemen's Club for the full 60-day Notice
period.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover for unpaid minimum wage compensation
and damages. The exotic dancer employees (putative plaintiffs) who
make up the proposed collective were subject to the same unlawful
policies and practices implemented by Brass Flamingo in violation
of the FLSA. Brass Flamingo misclassified Plaintiffs and each of
the putative plaintiffs as independent contractors and did not pay
them any minimum wage compensation due and owed for their work
duties performed.
The Plaintiffs were each employed by Brass Flamingo as exotic
dancers.
The Defendant operates a gentlemen's club.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 10,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3lBZZBM
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David B. Sacks, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SACKS
P.O. Box 50159
Jacksonville, FL 32240
Telephone: (904) 634-1122
E-mail: david@lawofficejacksonville.com
- and -
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Bourgier Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Patrice Bourgier,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-21053-FAM
(S.D. Fla., March 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company --https://www.thehartford.com/
-- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, home,
business, and flood insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Samuel Podhurst, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
City National Bank Building
25 W Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130-1780
Phone: (305) 358-2800
Fax: (305) 358-2382
Email: apodhurst@podhurst.com
- and -
Bruce Alan Weil, Esq.
James W Lee, Esq.
Marshall Dore Louis, Esq.
Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 2800
Bank of America Tower
Miami, FL 33131-2144
Phone: (305) 539-8400
Fax: 539-1307
Email: bweil@bsfllp.com
jlee@bsfllp.com
mlouis@bsfllp.com
szack@bsfllp.com
- and -
Kristina Marie Infante, Esq.
Lea Pilar Bucciero, Esq.
Pablo Rojas, Esq.
Steven Craig Marks, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
SunTrust International Center
One SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 358-2800
Email: kinfante@podhurst.com
lbucciero@podhurst.com
projas@podhurst.com
smarks@podhurst.com
HERRSCHNERS INC: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Herrschners, Inc. The
case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Herrschners, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01438 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Herrschners -- https://www.herrschners.com/ -- offers crafters
yarn, knit and crochet tools, cross stitch, embroidery, needlework,
crafts and much more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
IG DESIGN GROUP: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IG DESIGN GROUP
AMERICAS, INC. The case is styled as Luv Burbon and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. IG DESIGN GROUP AMERICAS, INC.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01439 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Design Group Americas -- https://www.thedesigngroup.com/ -- is a
gift packaging company, producing paper, decor, creative play and
dated good products for millions of customers throughout the United
States and beyond.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
INFINITY Q: Investor Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Alicia McElhaney, writing for Institutional Investor, reports that
an Infinity Q Capital Management investor is taking legal action
against the embattled firm, with the expectation that others will
join in the class action lawsuit.
The complaint, filed in the Eastern District of New York on
February 26, alleges that Liang Yang and other investors "suffered
significant losses and damages" after Infinity Q's chief investment
officer altered the firm's pricing models.
The lawsuit follows news that Infinity Q would gate and liquidate
certain portfolios after learning from the Securities and Exchange
Commission that its CIO, James Velissaris, had intervened in the
fund valuation process.
A statement on the firm's website says it independently verified
the SEC's findings and that Velissaris has been "relieved of his
duties."
After the news broke, a flurry of law firms descended, publishing
shareholder action alerts that urged investors in the fund to
participate in a class action lawsuit. So far, Yang's is the only
complaint that has been filed.
Yang is not only suing Velissaris and Infinity Q Capital
Management, but also the firm's non-executive chairman Leonard
Potter and Infinity Q's trustees, who work for the Trust for
Advised Portfolios.
The class action suit is seeking for the defendants to pay damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees, and other costs, according to the complaint.
A spokesperson for Infinity Q declined to comment on March 3.
Yang's lawyer did not respond to an email seeking comment.
According to the lawsuit, the statements Infinity Q made regarding
how it valued funds in 2019 and 2020 were "materially false and/or
misleading." Yang alleged that the defendants knew or "recklessly
disregarded" information pertaining to its fund valuations,
including failing to disclose that CIO "made adjustments . . . that
affected the valuation of the swaps held by the fund."
Central to the case is Infinity Q's $1.8 billion Diversified Alpha
Fund. The fund's investments included exposures to swaps and other
difficult-to-price, illiquid investments.
Infinity Q confirmed in late February that Velissaris had been
altering the fund's third-party valuation models. In the statement
on its website, the firm said that it has been "unable to value
certain assets held by the fund."
Infinity Q had originally closed the Diversified Alpha Fund to new
investors in December 2020, roughly two months before gating and
liquidating the fund, according to an SEC filing.
The firm has since locked Velissaris out of its trading accounts
and placed him on administrative leave, according to the statement.
Potter will now manage the firm, which has hired an independent
expert to conduct a valuation of its portfolio and to oversee its
liquidation, the statement said.
"The fund intends to proceed with a liquidation plan and
distribution to shareholders, both of which will be presented to
the SEC for approval. At this time, there is no estimate of when
the liquidation and distribution will be completed," the firm said.
"Until then, redemptions of fund shares will remain suspended."
[GN]
KAISER PERMANENTE: Seeks Dismissal of ADA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Kaiser Permanente told a Georgia federal judge
on March 2 that proposed class allegations that the company refused
to delay a job skills test to accommodate a mental illness should
be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to allege any harm to
workers other than herself. [GN]
KCS INTERNATIONAL: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KCS International
Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. KCS International Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01447 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
KCS International Inc. -- https://www.cruisersyachts.com/ --
manufactures ships and boats. The Company offers yacht and boat
engineering, design, and construction services, as well as provides
repairs and maintenance assistance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
KELLOGG COMPANY: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kellogg Company. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Kellogg Company, d/b/a
Kelloggs.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-01446 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Kellogg Company, doing business as Kellogg's --
https://www.kelloggcompany.com/en_US/home.html -- is an American
multinational food manufacturing company headquartered in Battle
Creek, Michigan, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
KONA LABELING: Class Action Settlements Reach $13.1 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown at dailycoffeenews.com reports that Costco,
Marshalls/T.J. Maxx parent company TJX and Gold Coffee Roasters
have joined the list of defendants reaching settlement agreements
with a group representing farmers from Hawaii's Kona region.
Thus far, settlement agreements from the class action lawsuit,
filed in 2019, have totaled just over $13.1 million, while numerous
resellers of coffee have agreed to more stringent requirements
regarding the marketing and sales of coffee products bearing the
Kona name.
The original complaint presented the results of laboratory testing
on 19 different coffee products that were marketed and sold as Kona
coffee but allegedly contained little or no coffee produced in
Kona.
The group of plaintiffs, comprising various coffee farm and estate
owners from the Kona region, say the suit is designed to prevent
false labeling of coffee products while protecting the quality
association that consumers have with Kona.
The plaintiffs have invoked the Lanham Act, a 1946 U.S. trademark
act designed to protect from "false designation of origin" in the
sale of consumer products.
"Even though only 2.7 million pounds of authentic green Kona coffee
is grown annually, over 20 million pounds of coffee labeled as
'Kona' is sold at retail," the suit, filed the State of Washington
district court, states. "That is physically impossible; someone is
lying about the contents of their 'Kona' products."
The suit named 21 different companies as defendants, including
roasters both in Hawaii and in the mainland United States, grocery
chains, and other large resellers such as Amazon and Costco.
Though none of the defendants have acknowledged any wrongdoing, at
least six defendants have settled to avoid further litigation. Thus
far, the largest financial settlements have come from coffee
roasting companies, while resellers have agreed to a range of new
marketing restrictions.
In the most recent wave of settlements, Florida-based Gold Coffee
Roasters agreed to pay $6.1 million. That follows previous cash
settlements from Minnesota-based Cameron's Coffee for $4.9 million;
BCC (d.b.a. "Boyer's Coffee Company") for just over $1.125 million;
Copper Moon Coffee for $360,000 and CostPlus/World Market for
$200,000.
Meanwhile, Costco and TJX (including Marshalls and T.J. Maxx), have
settled with the plaintiffs, agreeing to more stringent labeling
and marketing requirements.
For example, the agreement with Costco dictates that any coffee
product labeled as Kona coffee or as a Kona blend will state on the
front of the package what percentage of the coffee inside is
actually Kona-grown coffee. The agreement contains additional
requirements regarding the visibility of the Kona disclosure on
such packaging.
The lawsuit is ongoing, with numerous other large defendants
currently involved in litigation ahead of a trial. Other defendants
include Walmart, Amazon, Kroger, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Safeway.
None of the defendants have acknowledged any wrongdoing. [GN]
KROGER COMPANY: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Jones Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00146-TSB (S.D.
Ohio, March 3, 2021), alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
safeguard Kroger's employees' sensitive human resources records, as
well as Kroger's customers' personally identifiable information
("PII"), including current and former customer's full names,
residential addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers, social
security numbers, and its customers' protected health information
("PHI"), including insurance information, prescription information,
prescribing doctor, medication names and dates, medical history,
medical diagnoses, medical treatment information, and/or clinical
history.
Kroger is one of the largest supermarket retailers in the United
States, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio with over 400,000 current
employees and over 2,700 locations. It also operates several
subsidiary chains including Bakers, City Market, Dillons, Food Co.,
Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fred Meyers Jewelers, Fry's, Gerbes,
Harris Teeter, Home Chef, JayC, King Soopers, The Little Clinic,
Mariano's, Metro Market, Owen's, Pay Less, Pick ‘n Save, QFC,
Ralphs, Roundy's, Ruler Foods, Smith's, and Vitacost. Kroger
operates over 2,200 pharmacy locations and an additional roughly
225 Little Clinic locations in the United States making Kroger one
of the largest pharmacies in the United States. Furthermore, Kroger
provides personal finance and money services to customers and
employees throughout the United States.
According to Kroger, it was informed on January 23, 2021, that
certain of its customers' and employees PII and PHI was disclosed
through a data breach involving Kroger's third-party vendor,
Accellion. Kroger entrusted its employees' and customers' PII to
Accellion for the purposes of transferring certain of Kroger's
files and data, including the PII at issue in this matter.
Kroger was aware and had full knowledge that Accellion's data
security on the platform Kroger used was lax. In fact, prior to the
breach, Accellion encouraged Kroger to move to a newer and more
secure transfer platform.
On February 19, 2021, Kroger mailed data breach notices to those
customers and Kroger employees whose PII was accessed by
unauthorized third parties. Kroger did not adequately safeguard
Plaintiff's data, and now he and apparently many other patients,
current and former employees, and customers are the victims of a
significant data breach that will negatively affect them for the
rest of their lives.
As a result of Kroger's alleged failures, Plaintiff and the Class
Members are at a significant risk of identity theft, financial
fraud, and/or other identity-theft or fraud, imminently and for
years to come.
The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms, and prevent their future
occurrence, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the
data breach.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
W.B. Markovits, Esq.
Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
zschaengold@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Williams Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Williams v. Labcorp Employer Services, Inc. et al.
On October 5, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Williams v. Labcorp Employer Services, Inc. et al.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were
not properly compensated for work and overtime hours, not properly
paid meal and rest break premiums, not reimbursed for certain
business-related expenses, not properly paid for driving or wait
times, and received inaccurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff also asserts claims for unfair competition under
Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Peterson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Peterson v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings.
On October 2, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Peterson v. Laboratory Corporation of America
Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, alleging claims for a failure to properly pay
service representatives compensation for all hours worked and
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as notice and
recordkeeping claims under the New York Labor Code.
The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the class action suit entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc.
Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, remains
stayed.
Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. between August
15, 2016 and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits
were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned
Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta
v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v.
Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade
Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No.
16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California challenging the acquisition transaction.
The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its
board of directors.
The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition
Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants.
The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e),
14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing
to disclose certain allegedly material information.
In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, the Asiatrade
action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom
shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger.
On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On
September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all
pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under
the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No.
16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff
action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action.
On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two
separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the
Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff
and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties
agree that the MOU has been terminated.
The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss,
which remains pending. On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the
action in its entirety pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated
decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian.
On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the
writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Wage & Hour Suits Granted Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the court granted final approval of the settlement in the
three putative class action suits related to California wage and
hour laws.
Three putative class action lawsuits related to California wage and
hour laws have been served on the Company.
On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et
al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles.
On June 10, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Ignacio v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed
in Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
On July 1, 2019, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Jan v. Laboratory Corporation of America, filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
All three lawsuits were subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California and then consolidated
for all pre-trial proceedings. In the lawsuits, the Plaintiffs
allege that employees were not properly paid overtime compensation,
minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not receive
compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon
termination of employment.
The Plaintiffs assert these actions violate various California
Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice
under California law. The lawsuits seek monetary damages, civil
penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
On July 22, 2020, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of a settlement resolving all three lawsuits.
On November 18, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement and settlement proceeds have been distributed.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an
independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates
through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug
Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered
in Burlington, North Carolina.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LDOS)
securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Morton v. Leidos
Holdings, Inc., No. 21-cv-01911, and is assigned to Judge Mary Kay
Vyskocil. The Leidos class action lawsuit charges Leidos and
certain of its executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Leidos securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Leidos class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Leidos class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Leidos class action lawsuit.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of
the Leidos class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Leidos class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Leidos class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Leidos class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 3,
2021.
Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology
company that provides services and solutions in the defense,
intelligence, homeland security, civil, and health markets, both
domestically and internationally.
The Leidos class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the purported benefits of Leidos's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
("SD&A Businesses") were significantly overstated; (ii) Leidos's
products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty
explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (iii)
as a result, Leidos's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (iv) consequently, defendants' positive statements
about Leidos's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC published
a research report alleging, among other things, that "Leidos is
potentially covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales,
mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international revenue." The
report also alleged that Leidos was "concealing numerous product
defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems
at airports and borders." On this news, Leidos's share price fell.
Then, on February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and
full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein,
Leidos reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A Businesses
for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the
acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million
annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales.
Leidos expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst
estimates of $1.083 billion. On this news, Leidos's stock price
fell nearly 10%.
Finally, on February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos
had "materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report
for the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We
believe it is validating all the major points of our report." On
this news, Leidos's stock price fell once more, further damaging
investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information. [GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LDOS)
securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Morton v. Leidos
Holdings, Inc., No. 21-cv-01911, and is assigned to Judge Mary Kay
Vyskocil. The Leidos class action lawsuit charges Leidos and
certain of its executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Leidos securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Leidos class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Leidos class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Leidos class action lawsuit.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of
the Leidos class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
Leidos class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Leidos class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Leidos class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 3,
2021.
Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology
company that provides services and solutions in the defense,
intelligence, homeland security, civil, and health markets, both
domestically and internationally.
The Leidos class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the purported benefits of Leidos's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
("SD&A Businesses") were significantly overstated; (ii) Leidos's
products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty
explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (iii)
as a result, Leidos's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (iv) consequently, defendants' positive statements
about Leidos's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC published
a research report alleging, among other things, that "Leidos is
potentially covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales,
mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international revenue." The
report also alleged that Leidos was "concealing numerous product
defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems
at airports and borders." On this news, Leidos's share price fell.
Then, on February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and
full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein,
Leidos reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A Businesses
for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the
acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million
annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales.
Leidos expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst
estimates of $1.083 billion. On this news, Leidos's stock price
fell nearly 10%.
Finally, on February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos
had "materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report
for the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We
believe it is validating all the major points of our report." On
this news, Leidos's stock price fell once more, further damaging
investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information. [GN]
LOBSTER BAR: Navas Seeks Minimum Wages for Restaurant Servers
-------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY NAVAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. LOBSTER BAR GRILLE, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-60480-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
March 2, 2021) is a collective action complaint against the
Defendant for failure to pay federal minimum wages for certain
hours worked to all Restaurant Servers in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant unlawfully deprived
Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, of applicable federal
minimum wages during the course of their employment. This action
has been filed to cure and correct certain minimum wage violations
committed at Lobster Bar, on behalf of all Restaurant Servers who
worked for Defendant within the last three years.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has violated the minimum
wage requirements under federal law by paying all Restaurant
Servers the "tip credit" wage for all hours worked during a shift,
notwithstanding that the Defendant required restaurant servers to
spend more than 20% of their shifts performing non-tipped duties
and responsibilities.
The Plaintiff worked as a restaurant server for Defendant from 2016
until January 2020.
Lobster Bar offers a luxury dining experience to patrons in
downtown Fort Lauderdale on historic Las Olas Boulevard.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Security Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner at wfmj.com reports that a class-action civil lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court alleging security fraud
violations against Lordstown Motors Corporation, and three of its
executives.
A complaint filed by stockholder Matthew Rico names LMC, CEO Steve
Burns, President Rich Schmidt, and Chief Financial Officer Julio
Rodriquez as defendants, alleging violations of the Security and
Exchange Act.
The complaint says LMC repeatedly mentioned pre-order agreements
with prospective customers, claiming that it was "on track" to
begin production of the all-electric Lordstown Endurance in
September 2021.
Citing the March 12, Hindenburg Research report alleging fake
orders, production hurdles and a fire that destroyed a prototype of
the Endurance, the complaint notes that Lordstown common stock fell
16.5% in one day, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost market capitalization.
The complaint also cites LMC CEO Steve Burns' admission during a
conference call that the company had received an inquiry from the
SEC but failed to disclose the SEC probe in the filing of its
yearly and quarterly report.
The complaint states that RIDE shares fell another 9% in
aftermarket trading.
Alleging false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, the complaint states that LMC failed to disclose that its
"purported" orders were non-binding; that many of the "customers"
lacked the means to make such purchases; that LMC has not been "on
track" to begin production this coming September; and that the
first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into
flames within ten minutes.
The complaint alleges that Matthew Rico acquired and held shares of
Lordstown at artificially inflated prices and has been damaged by
the revelation of the Company's alleged "misrepresentations" and
"omissions."
The suit claims LMC violated SEC regulations " in that they
employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; made untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements not misleading; and engaged in
acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud
and deceit upon those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities during the class period."
The lawsuit says shareholders paid artificially inflated prices for
LMC shares that would not have purchased if they had been aware
"that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated
by Defendants' misleading Statements".
The suit asks the court to declare the complaint a class action,
allowing other shareholders to join, and award unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for anyone who purchased or
otherwise acquired Lordstown securities between August 3, 2020, and
March 17, 2021.
The lawsuit does not say how many shareholders could be eligible to
join, saying that there are so many that an estimate is
impracticable.
Attorney Drew Legando of the Cleveland law firm of Merriman,
Legando, Williams & Klang seeks a trial by jury.
LMC had not filed a response to the complaint. 21 News has reached
out to the public relations firm representing LMC. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 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 Northern District of Ohio against
Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) ("Lordstown") f/k/a
DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: DPHC) ("DiamondPeak") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired Lordstown securities between
August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Lordstown
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 17, 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/lordstown-motors-class-action-lawsuit
Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers. Lordstown's purported flagship vehicle
is the "Endurance," an electric full-size pickup truck. DiamondPeak
was structured as a special purpose acquisition company.
The Class Period commences on August 3, 2020, when Lordstown and
DiamondPeak announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement. The August 3, 2020 release provided, in relevant
part, that the transaction valued Lordstown "at an implied $1.6
billion pro forma equity value," and that the transaction was
expected to deliver approximately $675 million in gross proceeds.
The release also announced that the transaction was expected to
close in the fourth quarter of 2020. Throughout the Class Period,
Lordstown repeatedly lauded its pre-order agreements with
prospective customers. Moreover, Lordstown stated numerous times
that it was "on track" to begin production of the Endurance in
September 2021.
However, before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, Hindenburg
Research, LLC published a report on Lordstown entitled: "The
Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production
Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno." The report noted that Lordstown
has "no revenue and no sellable product," and that Lordstown "has
misled investors on both its demand and production capabilities."
The report concluded that Lordstown's "orders are largely
fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer
legitimacy," and that a former employee "explained how the company
is experiencing delays and making 'drastic' design modifications,
putting [Lordstown] an estimated 3-4 years away from production,"
rather than Lordstown being "on track" for a September 2021
production start. Following this news, the price of Lordstown's
common stock fell approximately 16.5%, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of $14.78.
Then, on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, Lordstown held
an earnings call on which the defendants disclosed that Lordstown
had received an inquiry from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"). Although Lordstown also issued a press release
and a Form 8-K announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2020
financial results after trading closed on March 17, 2021, Lordstown
failed to disclose the existence of the SEC inquiry in those
filings. Following this news, Lordstown's stock price fell
approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Lordstown's purported pre-orders were
non-binding; (2) many of the would-be customers who made these
purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or
would not have credible demand for the Endurance; (3) Lordstown is
not and has not been "on track" to commence production of the
Endurance in September 2021; (4) the first test run of the
Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10
minutes; and (5) as a result, Lordstown's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Lordstown investors may, no later than May 17, 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. [GN]
MA MEDINA: Mayen Labor Suit Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Julio Mayen v. MA Medina Farm
Labor Services, Inc. et al., Case No. BCV-20-102530, was removed
from the California Superior Court of Kern County to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno) on
March 1, 2021.
The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00318-DAD-JLT to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is related to Agriculture Acts involving labor
litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon Judge Dale A. Drozd.
The Defendants include W.M. Bolthouse Farms, Inc., a Michigan
corporation; Bolt House Farms, an unknown business form; Bolthouse
Farms Cuyama Cuyama, an unknown business form; Bolthouse Farms Kern
County, an unknown business form; and MA Medina Farm Labor Services
Inc., a California corporation.
M.A. Medina Farm Labor Services is located in Bakersfield,
California. This organization primarily operates in the general
farms, primarily crop business.[BN]
Plaintiff Julio Mayen an individual, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin Andrew Lipeles, Esq.
Thomas Henry Schelly, Esq.
LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 322-2211
Facsimile: (310) 322-2252
E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com
thomas@kallaw.com
Defendant W.M. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. is represented by:
Sonia A. Vucetic, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BROCKIUS LLP
300 S. Grand Ave., Floor 22
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: sonia.vucetic@morganlewis.com
- and -
John Spivey Battenfeld, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-1018
Facsmile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Socked With New Class Action Filed by Pembroke
------------------------------------------------------------------
thecapitolist.com reports that in what may be the beginning of a
wave of lawsuits filed by city and county governments across the
state and country, Pembroke Pines, a suburb of Miami, filed a class
action lawsuit against McKinsey & Company, a global consulting firm
that worked to "turbocharge" sales of the opioids on behalf of
Purdue Pharma. The lawsuit alleges that McKinsey's actions helped
contribute to an addiction epidemic that devastated the country and
caused more than 400,000 deaths.
To date, Pembroke Pines is the only local Florida government to
take legal action against McKinsey.
The timing of the Pembroke Pines lawsuit is interesting because it
was filed February 5th, the day after a nationwide settlement for
$573 million, between McKinsey & Co. and attorneys general from 47
states, including Florida, the District of Columbia and five U.S.
territories. In that settlement, Florida will receive more than $40
million. The money will be used to abate problems caused by opioid
abuse in Florida.
It's not clear how much of the state settlement money would go
towards local government mitigation of the opioid epidemic, if
any.
The multi-state settlement arose out of lawsuit over marketing
collaboration with Purdue Pharma in which McKinsey was allegedly
tasked with maximizing profits from its opioid products, including
targeting high-volume opioid prescribers, using specific messaging
to get physicians to prescribe more OxyContin to more patients and
circumventing pharmacy restrictions to deliver high-dose
prescriptions.
"McKinsey's method of aggressive marketing of opioids to
prescribers has demonstrably exacerbated the opioid crisis,"
according to the class action filed in Florida federal court. Those
marketing efforts tripled OxyContin sales nationally.
But Pembroke Pines' suit may just be one of the first of many filed
by local governments. A report published by Law 360 said "There are
early signs that a wave could be building. Cities, counties and at
least one Native American tribe have recently filed similar suits
against McKinsey in New York, Illinois, Florida, West Virginia and
Oklahoma, including some cases filed prior to the nationwide
settlement, according to state and federal court records."
The less than $600 million settlement with the states was heralded
as wholly inadequate by many following the case. In the LawSuit 360
story, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC partner Hunter Shkolnik, whose firm
represents several objecting New York cities and counties, called
the nine-figure deal "a joke" and said that McKinsey should pay
closer to $2 billion.
In an Orlando Sentinel opinion editorial, Central Florida residents
Brandy Fulghum and Della Wiggins, who each lost a son to opioid
overdose, wrote, "Responsibility in creating this nightmare cannot
be erased with a check."
"This (the $573 million settlement) is a trivial amount when
compared to what the company profited at the expense of lives and
is just a drop in the bucket when it comes to properly addressing
the needs of those most affected by their actions."
Evidently, the City of Pembroke Pines agreed, although its mayor,
Frank Ortis, declined to comment for this story.
Attorneys for Pembroke Pines said in the lawsuit that "McKinsey has
deliberately engaged in significant acts and omissions within the
City of Pembroke Pines . . . . that has injured its residents.
(McKinsey) purposefully directed their activities in the City of
Pembroke Pines . . . . and the claims arise out of those
activities."
The lawsuit said McKinsey's "unconscionable, unfair, or deceptive
acts or practices . . . . are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and
unscrupulous, as well as malicious, wanton, and manifesting of ill
will, and they caused substantial injury to (the City of Pembroke
Pines)" causing "irreparable injury."
The Capitolist reached out to the Florida's Attorney General Ashley
Moody's office to determine if Moody believed Pembrook Pines should
seek damages from McKinsey in light of the AG's settlement and if
she believed the initial settlement negotiated with McKinsey on
behalf of the state of Florida is adequate.
Her office responded, "It would not appropriate for us to comment
on other parties' pending litigation. Florida cities and counties
have their own counsel to independently advise them on whether to
bring litigation. We believe that the settlement achieved by almost
every state in the nation and McKinsey was and is an adequate
settlement of the claims that the State of Florida had. Under the
settlement, Florida obtained millions of dollars that it will be
able to utilize this year to help abate the epidemic, which is
claiming nearly 17 lives a day."
But to add insult to injury, reports are now surfacing that
McKinsey may now profit off of treating addicts, and be paid by the
very money awarded in the settlement.
NBC News reported, "McKinsey's wholly owned hedge fund affiliate,
MIO Partners, holds indirect stakes in addiction treatment centers
and a maker of overdose treatments.
"Because most of the money to be paid by McKinsey will go to state
programs funding addiction treatment centers and recovery services,
the deal may allow a McKinsey hedge fund affiliate to generate
investment gains, an NBC News investigation has found. That's
because the firm's wholly owned hedge fund affiliate, called MIO
Partners, holds indirect stakes in addiction treatment centers and
a maker of overdose treatment products.
"The MIO investment records . . . . show that MIO, which is run on
behalf of current and former McKinsey employees, invested in
companies that benefited during the rise of the opioid crisis and
now holds stakes in companies that could profit from remediation
efforts in the aftermath."
In the article, a McKinsey spokesman said it is "false and absurd"
to suggest that the firm will benefit financially from the big
state settlement.
"McKinsey has no visibility into or control of how settlement money
will be used by the states," he said. In addition, he said, the
hedge fund and the firm's consulting business are "operationally
separate," and the firm's past stakes in opioid makers through MIO
were taken by outside investment managers whose decisions McKinsey
doesn't direct or control."
McKinsey has made it clear they intend to fight the local
government lawsuits. "The recent settlements with state attorneys
general provided us an opportunity to be part of the solution to
the opioid epidemic and contained no admission of wrongdoing or
liability," a company spokesperson told Law360.com. "We will defend
ourselves against cases brought by the plaintiffs bar that are
designed to double-dip on the state settlements." [GN]
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT: Faces Horton Civil Rights Suit in W.D. Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connie Horton,
Warden, et al. The case is captioned as Allen D. Daniel No. 537193
v. Connie Horton, Warden, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00038-RJJ-MV
(W.D. Mich., March 1, 2021).
The lawsuit alleged violations of prisoner civil rights. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Judge Robert J. Jonker.[BN]
The Michigan Department of Corrections oversees prisons and the
parole and probation population in the state of Michigan, United
States. It has 31 prison facilities, and a Special Alternative
Incarceration program, together composing approximately 41,000
prisoners.
The Defendants include D. LaLonde, Deputy Warden; R. Batho,
Assistant Deputy Warden; A. Derry, Resident Unit Manager; Unknown
Stain, Prison Counselor; Sherry Newcomb, Correctional Officer /
Prison Guard; R. Laponsie, Correctional Officer / Prison Guard;
Heidi Washington, Director of the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC); Unknown Ms. Tobias, Correctional Officer /
Prison Guard; Unknown Lombard Correctional Officer / Prison Guard;
C. Laponsie, Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; A. Munro,
Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; Unknown Mr. Smith,
Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; Unknown Mr. Carron,
Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; Corizon Health Care Services;
MDOC Medical Provider; Gerald Covert; Unknown Ms. Smith,
Registered Nurse; Maria Bennette, RN; Unknown Mrs. McDowell, RN;
Melissa LaPlant, HUM; Unknown Ms. Martyn, NP Unknown Mr. Trotton,
Lieutenant; Unknown Mr. Trembley, Sergeant; Unknown Mr. Jones,
Sergeant; K. Mogahey, Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; Unknown
Gugen, Correctional Officer; Unknown Bank Sergeant; Unknown Clogg
Mr. Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; Unknown Michaels, Dentist;
Unknown Part(y)(ies) No. 1 named as Unknown Dentist No. 1 on
complaint; J. Miller, Acting Deputy Warden; Unknown Part(y)(ies)
No. 2 named as Unknown Dentist #2 white male with glasses on
complaint; Unknown Part(y)(ies) No. 3 named as Dental Hygienist;
No. 2 white female with glasses on complaint; Ms S. Shegen,
Correctional Officer / Prison Guard; and Brenda Buchanan, Nurse
Practitioner.
The Plaintiff named as a black male inmate and any inmate prisoner
similarly situated on complaint appears pro se.
Allen D. Daniel
4269 W M-80
Kincheloe, MI 49784
Chippewa (MSP)
Chippewa Correctional Facility
MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE: Bid to Certify Class in Marlow Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAURIE MARLOW, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MID-SOUTH MAINTENANCE
OF TENNESSEE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00711 (M.D.
Tenn.), Judge Eli Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification of the case as a
Collective Action without prejudice.
Plaintiff Marlow claims that the Defendants have failed to comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and have not provided
her pay (at time-and-a-half) for overtime work to which she is
entitled. She claims that she was classified as an exempt employee
under the FLSA, when actually she should have been classified as
non-exempt employee and therefore entitled to overtime pay.
Defendant Mid-South is a restaurant equipment repair company that
operates in Nashville, Tennessee. The company provides commercial
kitchen equipment services, HVAC repair, and maintenance services
(such as plumbing, electrical, and facility maintenance).
The Complaint asserts a single count for violation of the overtime
provision of the FLSA. Via the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks to
conditionally certify a class of allegedly similarly situated
workers also denied overtime wages under the FLSA. In support of
the Motion, the Plaintiff filed two declarations: one from
Plaintiff Marlow, and one from Opt-In Plaintiff Howerton.
The Plaintiff asks the Court (1) to conditionally certify the case
as a FLSA collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on
behalf of similarly situated employees; (2) to require the
Defendant to identify all putative FLSA Collective members by
providing a list of names and contact information within 20 days of
the Court's decision; (3) to allow for posted notice in breakrooms
and disseminated notice with paychecks, and (4) to order the
parties to meet and confer to decide on an agreed Notice and
Consent to Join
In support of its opposition, the Defendants filed several
declarations and documents.
The FLSA provides that a collective action may be maintained
against any employer by one or more employees for and on behalf of
themselves and other employees similarly situated. Because the
FLSA requires only that employees be similarly situated, plaintiffs
seeking to certify a collective action under the FLSA face a lower
burden than those seeking to certify a class action under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Also, unlike class actions under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, FLSA collective actions require
a similarly situated employee to "opt-in" in order to participate
as a plaintiff.
Typically, courts employ a two-phase inquiry to address whether the
named plaintiffs are similarly situated to the employees they seek
to represent. The first phase takes place at the beginning of
discovery. The second occurs after all of the opt-in forms have
been received and discovery has concluded.
At the first stage, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that
employees in the class are similarly situated. A plaintiff must
present substantial allegations supported by declarations; if the
plaintiff meets that burden, a court, in its discretion, may
conditionally certify the case as a collective action. After
discovery, the defendant may move for decertification of the
conditional class, which triggers the second phase of the court's
review. At this second stage, the court has access to more
information and employs a "stricter standard" in deciding whether
class members are, in fact, similarly situated.
The Plaintiff's proposed class comprises "all current and former
employees of Mid-South Maintenance of Tennessee, LLC (Mid-South)
who worked as dispatchers at the Mid-South facility in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee within the last three years."
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff Marlow has failed to show
that she is similarly situated to the employees in the dispatch
department.
Judge Richardson opines the Plaintiff Marlow provides no evidence
to support her awareness or to explain how she is aware of other
employees facing the same overtime situation. Opt-In Plaintiff
Howerton's declaration is similar, stating that she is "aware" of
other employees who worked more than 40 hours a week, but she
(unlike Plaintiff Marlow) additionally notes that these other
employees worked with her in the dispatch department.
The Plaintiff's attempts to anchor her similarly situated argument
on the last paragraph of Opt-In Plaintiff Howerton's declaration
fail for several reasons. That paragraph did not identify any
other dispatch employees (beyond calling them, generically,
"current and former employees [who] worked with me in the Dispatch
department"), did not specifically argue that they were subject to
a common pay policy (other than generally stating that she believed
they were not paid overtime pay for all hours worked over 40
hours), and did not indicate in any way that Opt-In Plaintiff
Howerton actually "observed" these other employees or knew somehow
of their pay arrangements.
In addition to noting that the declarations assert only an
"awareness" of other potential plaintiffs, the Defendants point the
Court to several other issues that indicate that the declarations
are insufficient in a case (like the instant one) where the
Plaintiff alleges that other employees were similarly mislabeled as
exempt/non-exempt under the FLSA: Opt-In Plaintiff Howerton does
not state whether she was paid on a salary basis or whether she was
paid overtime; neither Plaintiff Marlow or Opt-In Plaintiff
Howerton identifies the positions (or the job duties) of the other
employees to whom they refer; and Plaintiff Marlow and Opt-In
Plaintiff Howerton each had a job title different from the other's
and have alleged few facts showing that their jobs were similar,
beyond alleging that each job involved talking to customers on the
phone.
Judge Richardson concludes that Plaintiff Marlow and Opt-In
Plaintiff Howerton's declarations are insufficient to support a
finding that they are similarly situated to employees that would
comprise the putative class. Thus, he denied the Motion. Because
each side has requested that any denial be without prejudice, the
denial is without prejudice to filing another such motion after
completion of additional discovery.
But as a prerequisite to filing another such motion, the Court
expects the Plaintiff to file a concise motion requesting leave to
do so, explaining what has changed such that she should be
permitted a second bite at the proverbial apple and also stating
whether the Defendant opposes the filing of such motion (as
distinguished from opposing the relief requested in such motion).
An appropriate order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/e84bd3bs from Leagle.com.
MJ LUCKY: Hinds Seeks Earned Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, MFWSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christa Hinds, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MJ Lucky Dog I, LLC, MJ Lucky Dog II and MaryAnn
Dempsey, Case No. 3:21-cv-00075-WHR (S.D. Ohio, March 2, 2021) is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio
Constitution and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated employees all earned minimum wages and overtime
wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants employed a common policy
and practice whereby Plaintiff and the members of the Classes were
required to regularly work for the benefit of the Defendants while
their hours were not being properly paid, classified, or recorded.
The Plaintiff worked as a bartender at the Defendants' Legends Bar
and Grill in Fairborn, Ohio from July, 2018 to January 30, 2021.
The Defendants own and/or operate two Legends Bar and Grill
Restaurants, one in Fairborn, Ohio and one in Clyde, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 3 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against MoneyGram International, Inc.
("MoneyGram") (NASDAQ: MGI) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired the securities of MoneyGram between June 17, 2019 and
February 22, 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) XRP, the
cryptocurrency that MoneyGram was utilizing as part of its Ripple
partnership, was viewed as an unregistered and therefore unlawful
security by the SEC; (2) in the event that the SEC decided to
enforce the securities laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be
likely to lose the lucrative stream of market development fees that
was critical to its financial results throughout the Class Period;
and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MoneyGram
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
30, 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]
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of MoneyGram International, Inc. (NASDAQ:MGI)
between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 30, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased MoneyGram securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the MoneyGram class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2046.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XRP, the cryptocurrency that
MoneyGram was utilizing as part of its Ripple partnership, was
viewed as an unregistered and therefore unlawful security by the
SEC; (2) in the event that the SEC decided to enforce the
securities laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be likely to lose
the lucrative stream of market development fees that was critical
to its financial results throughout the Class Period; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the MoneyGram class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2046.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on March 3 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
MoneyGram International, Inc. ("MoneyGram") (NASDAQ: MGI) in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
MoneyGram between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of MoneyGram and incurred losses
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of MoneyGram, you may, no
later than April 30, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of
MoneyGram International, Inc.
The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
* XRP, the cryptocurrency that MoneyGram was utilizing as part
of its Ripple partnership, was viewed as an unregistered and
therefore unlawful security by the SEC;
* in the event that the SEC decided to enforce the securities
laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be likely to lose the
lucrative stream of market development fees that was critical to
its financial results throughout the Class Period; and
* as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On February 22, 2021, MoneyGram filed its annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, disclosing to
shareholders that it was "possible that MoneyGram will not resume
transacting with Ripple under the commercial agreement and will be
unable to receive the related market development fees in 2021 and
beyond."
On this news, MoneyGram securities fell 33.2%, from a closing price
on February 19, 2021 of $10.87, to a closing price on February 23,
2021 of $7.26 per share.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
MONEYGRAM: Faces Class Action Over Ties to Ripple, XRP Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Hold reports that MoneyGram is facing a new lawsuit over its
ties to the blockchain tech company Ripple.
A newly filed class-action lawsuit claims the money transfer firm
misled, lied or hid from investors pertinent information regarding
Ripple and the cryptocurrency XRP.
The suit comes months after the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) accused Ripple of selling XRP as an unregistered
security.
The new class-action suit argues that MoneyGram will be financially
harmed if the outcome of the SEC action is unfavorable.
"…in the event that the SEC decided to enforce the securities
laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be likely to lose the
lucrative stream of market development fees that was critical to
its financial results throughout the Class Period."
The suit demands that investors who bought shares of the money
transfer firm during the class period be compensated, stating they
suffered damages when the stock market received the news that
MoneyGram was "not planning for any benefit from Ripple market
development fees in the first quarter" of 2021.
"The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MoneyGram investors under
the federal securities laws."
The suit is focusing on investors who bought shares of MoneyGram
between June 17th, 2019 and February 22nd, 2021.
In November of 2019, Ripple purchased a $50-million equity stake in
MoneyGram. MoneyGram subsequently stated it was using Ripple's
XRP-based payments platform to power 10% of its flows between the
US and Mexico.
On February 22nd, 2021, MoneyGram announced that it suspended the
use of Ripple's foreign exchange trading platform due to the
uncertainty concerning Ripple's ongoing litigation with the SEC.
[GN]
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on March 3 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against MultiPlan Corporation
("MultiPlan" or the "Company") (NYSE:MPLN), formerly known as
Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") (NYSE:CCXX), on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired MPLN or CCXX
securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020 (the "Class
Period").
Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a special purpose
acquisition ("SPAC") vehicle, and on July 12, 2020, announced that
it would combine with privately held MultiPlan. According to the
complaint, in connection with the proposed combination Churchill
III filed a defective proxy statement with the SEC on September 18,
2020, which contained numerous materially false and misleading
statements and omissions. On the basis of the defective proxy
statement, on October 7, 2020, Churchill III investors voted to
approve the business combination.
On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
Muddy Waters published a report entitled "MultiPlan: Private Equity
Necrophilia Meets the Great 2020 Money Grab." Among other things,
the report reveled that: (i) MultiPlan was in the process of losing
its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost
Churchill III up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free
cash flow within two years; (ii) MultiPlan was in significant
financial decline because of its fundamentally flawed business
model, which profited from excessively high healthcare costs; (iii)
UnitedHealthcare had purportedly launched a competitor, Naviguard,
to reduce its business with MultiPlan and bring the over-priced and
conflicted services offered by MultiPlan inhouse; and (iv)
MultiPlan had suffered from material, undisclosed pricing pressures
that had caused it to slash the "take rate" it charged customers in
half in some instances and falsely characterized revenue declines
as "idiosyncratic" when in fact they were due to sustained,
negative pricing trends afflicting MultiPlan's business. Following
this report, shares of MultiPlan's stock significant declined in
value, and currently trade below $7.00 per share.
MultiPlan investors who purchased or acquired CCXX securities prior
to September 14, 2020 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/multiplan-corp/, for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and options.
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]
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on March 3
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN; MPLN.WS)
("MultiPlan") f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III")
on behalf of: (1) those who purchased or acquired MultiPlan
securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"); and (2) 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 consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired MultiPlan
securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 26,
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/multiplan-corp-securities-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=multiplan.
Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a special purpose
acquisition vehicle. On February 14, 2020, Churchill III completed
its initial public offering, selling 110 million ownership units to
investors for gross proceeds of $1.1 billion (the "IPO"). Pursuant
to the IPO prospectus, Churchill III was required to acquire a
target business with an aggregate fair market value of at least 80%
of the assets held in trust from the IPO proceeds and to do so
within two years of the IPO.
The Class Period commences on July 12, 2020, when Churchill III and
MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist, issued a joint press
release announcing their agreement to combine. The Merger,
initially valued at $5.7 billion, would be funded by the IPO
proceeds as well as billions of dollars in new debt and equity
issuances.
On September 18, 2020, Churchill III issued the proxy statement for
the Merger which urged shareholders to vote in favor of the deal
(the "Proxy"). The Proxy stated that Churchill had identified
MultiPlan as a potential acquisition target soon after the IPO. On
the basis of the Proxy, on October 7, 2020, shareholders voted to
approve the Merger at a special shareholders meeting. Because of
the Proxy, shareholders were prevented from the fully informed
opportunity to redeem their shares as was their right. The shares
subject to redemption were valued in the Proxy at approximately $10
per share.
On November 11, 2020, 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", which
was based on extensive non-public sources such as interviews with
former MultiPlan executives and other industry experts, as well as
proprietary analysis. The report revealed, in part, that: (1)
MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client,
UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost Churchill III up to
35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within
two years; (2) MultiPlan was in significant financial decline
because of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited
from excessively high healthcare costs; (3) UnitedHealthcare had
purportedly launched a competitor, Naviguard, to reduce its
business with MultiPlan and bring the over-priced and conflicted
services offered by MultiPlan inhouse; and (4) MultiPlan had
suffered from material, undisclosed pricing pressures that had
caused it to slash the "take rate" it charged customers in half in
some instances and falsely characterized revenue declines as
"idiosyncratic" when in fact they were due to sustained, negative
pricing trends afflicting MultiPlan's business.
Following this news, the price of Churchill III's securities
declined. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III's Class
A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
The complaint alleges that the Proxy failed to disclose among other
things that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars
in sales and revenues to Naviguard, which threatened up to 35% of
Churchill III's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022;
(b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the
Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as
represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in
demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition; (c)
MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services
and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead
up to the Merger by insurers; (d) as a result of the foregoing,
MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings
declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics
following the Merger; and (e) as a result of the foregoing,
Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of
MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far
less than represented to investors.
MultiPlan investors may, no later than April 26, 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.
Contacts:
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]
MYLIFE.COM INC: Minn. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Finlay Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brion Finlay, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MyLife.com Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1105
(SRN/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota denies MyLife's Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint.
Plaintiff Finlay is a resident of Minnesota and is currently
searching for a new job. He alleges that it is common for
prospective employers to search a prospective employee's name
through Google's search engine. When one searches the name "Brion
Finlay," Google generates a search result for "www.mylife.com,"
stating the following: "Brion Finlay (C), 42 - Minneapolis, MN Has
Court or Arrest Records." Upon clicking this link, the user
arrives at a webpage stating that "Brion DOES have Arrest or
Criminal Records" in bolded red text.
The webpage then states: "Check Full Background Report to see
possible arrest or conviction records we have found on Brion. This
may include any DUIs, traffic tickets and outstanding warrants.
When applicable, we may show where the crime occurred and provide
details about the offense." This webpage also provides a link to
"View Brion's Court, Arrest or Criminal Records." When a user
attempts to view Finlay's "Court, Arrest or Criminal Records" on
his MyLife profile, MyLife states that Finlay's profile may contain
"graphic content and sensitive details" and suggests that Finlay is
a sex offender -- which he is not.
MyLife also provides a "Reputation Score" on Finlay's profile. To
calculate his "Reputation Score," MyLife allegedly collects and
analyzes a variety of information, including certain public records
and "user reviews" (i.e., "personal reviews written by others").
According to Finlay, MyLife claims on its website that the
"Reputation Score" it calculates is "more important than a credit
score" and that its "Reputation Scores" may assist in selecting
among, inter alia, job applicants, service providers, business
opportunities, and dating prospects. Indeed, Finlay alleges that
MyLife's markets its "Reputation Score" to employers.
In addition, MyLife's advertisements acknowledge that employers may
use its "Reputation Scores" and that failing to have a good
"Reputation Score" may cause consumers to lose out on employment
opportunities. For example, in one advertisement, MyLife stated:
(1) "Did you ever send out your resume and never hear back?"; and
(2) "A bad reputation can hurt you personally and professionally."
According to Finlay, MyLife assigned a "Reputation Score" of 2.32
to 3.51 to him, and MyLife has stated elsewhere that a "Reputation
Score" of 2.32 constitutes a poor "Reputation Score."
According to Finlay, MyLife searches public records databases,
among other sources, collects "user reviews," and generates his
MyLife profile using all of the information it aggregates.
Further, rather than simply including the aggregated information in
the form that third-parties supply it, MyLife instead "interprets"
and "editorializes" the aggregated information and often does so
incorrectly.
In Finlay's view, MyLife includes all of this information in its
profiles to cause reputational harm and incentivize consumers to
pay MyLife to remove such information from their profiles. Indeed,
Finlay alleges that MyLife offers the subjects of its profiles the
option to remove information on their MyLife profile for a fee.
MyLife requests these payments by asking individuals to "claim"
their profile and "repair" their reputations.
In addition to targeting the individual subjects of its profiles,
Finlay alleges that MyLife markets and sells information on its
profiles to third-parties. According to Finlay, MyLife markets its
profiles to third-parties for employment and other purposes. He
alleges that MyLife expects and understands that its profiles may
be used for employment purposes, and third-parties purchase and use
MyLife's profiles for this purpose. In fact, Finlay alleges that
individuals seeking to employ him, among others, have consulted his
MyLife profile. Further, he alleges that MyLife takes no steps to
assure the accuracy of the information in its profiles.
On May 7, 2020, Finlay filed his initial complaint in the action.
On Aug. 7, 2020, he filed an amended complaint, which is the
operative complaint, alleging three Counts.
Under Count 1, Finlay alleges that MyLife willfully failed to
comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by: (1) failing
to assure that users of its reports have a permissible purpose for
accessing them, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b; (2)
failing to limit obsolete consumer information contained in its
reports, in violation of Section 1681c(a); (3) failing to institute
and follow reasonable procedures to limit the furnishing of
consumer reports to the permissible purposes under Section 1681b,
in violation of Section 1681e(a); and (4) failing to institute and
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of
the information in reports concerning Finlay, in violation of
Section 1681e(b).
Under Count 2, Finlay alleges that MyLife negligently failed to
comply with the FCRA on the same four grounds upon which it alleges
willful noncompliance. Under Count 3, Finlay alleges that MyLife
engaged in common law defamation by stating "Brion DOES have arrest
or criminal records" and "Brion's report may contain graphic
content and sensitive details."
MyLife moves the Court to dismiss the Complaint on three general
grounds: (1) Finlay fails to adequately allege standing under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) Finlay fails
to state a claim under the FCRA under Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) Finlay
fails to state a claim for common law defamation under Rule
12(b)(6).
Regarding the Defendant's first ground of dismissal, the heart of
the parties' dispute on standing is whether Finlay plausibly
alleges an injury-in-fact.
Viewing Finlay's allegations in the light most favorable to him,
Judge Nelson finds that he plausibly alleges an actual
injury-in-fact that is "particularized" and "concrete." First,
Finlay satisfies the particularization prong of the injury-in-fact
analysis. Namely, he alleges that MyLife's conduct affected him in
a "personal and individual way" by creating and making available on
the Internet a MyLife profile for him specifically. Second, Finlay
plausibly alleges an injury-in-fact that is concrete. Indeed,
Finlay alleges that individuals seeking to employ him, among
others, have consulted his MyLife profile. The Judge concludes
that Finlay has alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer
standing at this stage.
Next, the Judge considers whether Finlay's alleged harms are fairly
traceable to the challenged conduct of MyLife. She finds that
MyLife itself devised and calculates the "Reputation Score" that it
includes on consumers' profiles. That, alone, dismantles MyLife's
argument that all of the information in its profiles is available
elsewhere in the public domain. Consequently, the harms alleged in
the Complaint are fairly traceable to MyLife's conduct.
Lastly, the Judge considers whether the alleged harms Finlay
suffered are likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision. She finds that they are because an award of damages
and/or injunctive relief would redress the alleged harms.
Accordingly, at this stage, Finlay has sufficiently alleged Article
III standing, the Judge holds.
MyLife contends that the Complaint fails to state a claim under the
FCRA because the Complaint: (1) does not plausibly allege that
MyLife provides "consumer reports"; (2) does not plausibly allege
that MyLife is a "consumer reporting agency" ("CRA"); and (3) does
not plausibly allege willful violations of the FCRA.
Judge Nelson finds that Finlay adequately alleges that MyLife
provides "consumer reports" under the FCRA. First, Finlay alleges
that his MyLife profile contains information bearing on matters
covered by Section 1681a(d)(1). In addition, Finlay alleges that
the information in his MyLife profile "is used," "expected to be
used," or "collected in whole or in part" for the purpose of
serving as a factor in evaluating Finlay's eligibility for
employment. Finally, the "site terms" that Finlay and MyLife
reference are not properly before the Court at this time, so the
Judgedeclines to dismiss Finlay's Complaint based on what these
terms may or may not provide, especially in light of Finlay's
well-pleaded allegations describede. Thus, Finlay plausibly
alleges that MyLife provides consumer reports.
The Judge also holds that Finlay has plausibly alleged that MyLife
is a CRA. First, the Complaint plausibly alleges that MyLife acts
for compensation. Second, the Judge can only consider the
allegations in the Complaint and must accept them as true.
Consequently, she accepts as true Finlay's well-pleaded allegations
that MyLife intended to furnish consumer reports to third-parties.
Finlay has alleged sufficient facts to support a willfulness claim,
the Judge finds. Accordingly, she denies MyLife's request to
dismiss Finlay's claim for statutory and punitive damages at this
stage. Taking the alleged facts as true, the Judge finds that
Finlay plausibly alleges that MyLife is subject to the FCRA for the
reasons discussed. Further, based on all of the facts alleged in
the Complaint, she finds that Finlay has alleged sufficient facts
to support a willfulness claim.
Lastly, the Judge finds that Finlay plausibly alleges that MyLife's
statement is false. In addition to pointing to Minn. Stat. Section
609.02, subd. 4a., Finlay alleges that the traffic tickets he
received are "commonly" known as "violations," not crimes. This is
enough to plausibly allege falsity, particularly because the truth
or falsity of a statement is generally "a question for the jury."
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings in the
matter, Judge Nelson denied MyLife's Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j5he8da9 from
Leagle.com.
David J.S. Madgett, Madgett & Klein, PLLC, at 1161 E Wayzata Blvd,
Suite 314, in Wayzata, Minnesota 55391, for Plaintiff.
Robert R. Hopper -- robert.hopper@robertrhopper.com -- and Jason
Scott Juran -- jason.juran@robertrhopper.com -- Robert R. Hopper &
Associates, at 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2450, in
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, for Plaintiff.
Eric M. Roberts -- eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- and Raj N. Shah --
raj.shah@dlapiper.com. -- DLA Piper LLP (US), at 444 West Lake
Street, Suite 900, in Chicago, Illinois 60606, for Defendant.
Richard R. Voelbel -- rvoelbel@felhaber.com -- and Brandon J.
Wheeler -- bwheeler@felhaber.com -- Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon &
Vogt, PA, at 220 South 6th Street, Suite 2200, in Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, for Defendant.
MYRIAD GENETICS: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), Judge David Barlow of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Utah:
(i) denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs'
Amended Class Action Complaint;
(ii) grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike; and
(iii) denies the Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice.
Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions administers the
defined benefit retirement plan for employees of the City of Los
Angeles. Los Angeles and other Plaintiffs acquired Myriad Genetics
stock.
Principally based in Salt Lake City, Myriad is a molecular
diagnostic company that develops and markets genetic lab tests
screening for the presence of certain traits or diseases. Myriad's
products include a pharmacogenomic test called "GeneSight" and
genetic tests for hereditary cancer.
The individual Defendants are: Mark C. Capone, Myriad's former
President and CEO; Bryan Riggsbee, Myriad's CFO during the class
period and interim President and CEO; and Bryan M. Dechairo,
Myriad's Executive VP of Clinical Development.
Assurex, an Ohio company, originally developed GeneSight and
initiated the GUIDED study, a clinical study designed to evaluate
the GeneSight test. After Myriad's acquisition of Assurex and
GeneSight in 2016, revenue for the GeneSight product grew quickly,
eventually overtaking the hereditary cancer test as Myriad's
largest volume product. The revenue of GeneSight was reported to
be "a major driver of Myriad stock's valuation."
On Oct. 31, 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration publicly
issued a Safety Communication that "warned against the use of many
genetic tests with unapproved claims to predict patient response to
specific medications." Later, Myriad stated that"the study design
is in line with the recent FDA draft guidance for MDD trials. It
continued to state that the GUIDED study distinguished itself and
its GeneSight test from the tests of competitors.
On Aug. 1, 2019, Myriad announced that United Healthcare had
decided to cover the GeneSight test. The announcement boosted
Myriad's stock price by 55%. The same day, in pre-planned stock
sales, Capone and Riggsbee sold 31% and 10% of their respective
personally-held Myriad stock.
Two weeks later, on Aug. 13, 2019, Myriad held an earnings call
after the close of the markets. During the call, Myriad announced
that it had discontinued GeneSight ADHD and analgesic panels in May
2019, acknowledging that these panels were not supported by
adequate evidence and that some payors had refused to reimburse for
administration of the panels. Myriad disclosed that shortly after
the panels were withdrawn, the reduced demand for GeneSight caused
a 23% decline in GeneSight revenue. Myriad's stock price dropped
approximately 42% on Aug. 14, 2019.
On Nov. 4, 2019, Myriad disclosed that it had overstated the
revenue for a different set of panels -- its breast and ovarian
cancer tests -- by $18 million. In response, Myriad stock value
dropped approximately 40%.
On Feb. 6, 2020, Myriad announced that Defendant Capone would be
resigning as CEO effectively immediately. It also disclosed that
it was experiencing challenges obtaining reimbursement from
UnitedHealthcare for its GeneSight tests, despite its coverage
decision. Consequently, tests under UnitedHealthcare contributed
very little to Myriad's overall GeneSight sales and the company
announced a significant revenue shortfall. The announcements led
to an approximately 28% decline in Myriad stock prices on Feb. 6,
2020. On Feb. 10, 2020, Dechairo allegedly was demoted from his
position as an executive officer.
Before the court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
and must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Also before the court is the Plaintiffs' related
Motion to Strike and Request for Judicial Notice.
As an initial matter, the Lead Plaintiff requests that 12 exhibits
attached to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be stricken. It also
requests that the court take judicial notice of 14 additional
documents. They claim alleged misrepresentations by Myriad and the
individual Defendants over a period of time kept stock prices
artificially high and obscured the risks to stockholders. The
Plaintiffs refer to none of the challenged exhibits in the
complaint.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants challenge the
sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. In support of
their motion, the Defendants attached 36 exhibits, comprised of
more than a thousand pages, purported to be "incorporated by
reference" in the Amended Complaint or "judicially noticeable."
The attached exhibits include, among other things, financial
analyst reports, a patient brochure, a third-party position
statement on pharmacogenomic testing, reporting forms from a
third-party drug company, a letter from third parties to federal
administrative agencies, and journal articles.
The challenged exhibits are not referred to in the Amended
Complaint and therefore not subject to consideration under the
Jacobsen exception. Nevertheless, the Defendants contend that the
documents should be considered because they fit within the
categories of documents courts sometimes consider in deciding
motions to dismiss. That they may be of the same type of documents
considered by some district courts is insufficient to pull these
documents within the limited exception authorizing consideration of
material beyond the four corners of the complaint.
For the same reasons, Judge Barlow declines to take judicial notice
of the 14 documents the Plaintiffs put forward in their motion to
strike.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs failed to plead the first and third elements of a
Section 10(b) claim. Specifically, they contend that the Amended
Complaint inadequately pleads that the Defendants made misleading
statements of fact (or omissions) and that the Defendants acted
with the requisite scienter.
Judge Barlow holds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a
Section 10(b) claim under the Exchange Act. Considering the
Amended Complaint in its entirety, as well as the documents
incorporated by reference, he concludes that the Plaintiffs have
met the heightened pleading standard applicable to alleged false,
misleading, or omitted fact statements. That is, the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint clearly and specifically identifies multiple
statements of the Defendants "alleged to have been misleading," and
the Plaintiffs offered "the reason or reasons why the statement is
misleading." Accordingly, this element is pleaded sufficiently.
The Judge also holds that taken together, the Plaintiffs have
alleged facts sufficient to support a cogent and strong inference
of scienter that is at least as compelling as the innocent
alternative. If the many facts alleged are true, a reasonable fact
finder could find that the Defendants at least acted with a
"reckless disregard of a substantial likelihood of misleading
investors."
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes joint
and several liability for controlling persons who aid in securities
violations. To state a prima facie case of control person
liability, the plaintiff must establish (1) a primary violation of
the securities laws and (2) 'control' over the primary violator by
the alleged controlling person."
The Defendants argue only that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead
a predicate violation under the Exchange Act.
As Judge Barlow explained, however, the Amended Complaint
adequately alleges a Section 10(b) claim. The Plaintiffs have
adequately pPleaded Section 20(a) and Section 20A claims under the
Exchange Act.
Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act authorizes damages
against "any person who violates any provision of this chapter or
the rules or regulations thereunder by purchasing or selling a
security while in possession of material, nonpublic information.
To meet the statutory requirements, the complainant must have,
"contemporaneously with the purchase or sale of securities that is
the subject of such violation, purchased (where such violation is
based on a sale of securities) or sold (where such violation is
based on a purchase of securities) securities of the same class."
Additionally, "courts have interpreted Section 20A as requiring the
plaintiff to plead a predicate violation of the 1934 Act or its
rules and regulations," such as a Section 10(b) claim. As Judge
Barlow addressed, the Plaintiffs have alleged a predicate violation
of the Exchange Act, so that requirement is met.
The Defendants also contend that the Plaintiffs lack standing
because they did not make a contemporaneous trade as required by
the statute. Section 20A does not identify the scope of the term
"contemporaneous" but the court concludes that it may include a
two-day gap in trades.
The Plaintiffs allege that Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles purchased
Myriad common stock on July 13, 2018, two days after Defendant
Capone sold stock. They also allege the sales occurred while
Capone was in possession of material, nonpublic information
concerning the efficacy of the GeneSight ADHD and analgesic panels
and concerns about the GUIDED study data. Their purchase occurred
shortly after the Defendants' sale and while the Defendants
allegedly withheld negative information about Myriad's key
products. These transactions were sufficiently contemporaneous to
support standing under Section 20A, the Judge finds.
Lastly, the Defendants suggest that the Court should consider the
information held by the Defendants at the time they decided to sell
stock, rather than the information known at the time of the trade.
However, the plain language of the Exchange Act requires a showing
that the trades were contemporaneous while the Defendant was "in
possession of material, nonpublic information. The Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged that, at the time of the stock sales, Capone and
Riggsbee knew that GeneSight panels' efficacy had not been
validated. Accordingly, the Jugde finds that the Plaintiffs have
standing to assert a claim under Section 20A of the Exchange Act.
For the reasons he stated in his Memorandum Decision and Order,
Judge Barlow denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, grants the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike, and denies the Plaintiffs' Request
for Judicial Notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/jxhb44dz from Leagle.com.
NASSAU, CA: Faces Markey Suit in New York Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Department of
Assesssment of the County of Nassau. The case is captioned as JAMES
MARKEY, CAROLYN MARKEY AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE
DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSSMENT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, Case No.
602557/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., March 2, 2021).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Helen Voutsinas.
The Department of Assessment is responsible for developing fair and
equitable assessments for all residential and commercial properties
in Nassau County on an annual basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
132 Spruce Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 569-8100
The Defendant is represented by:
Jared A. Kasschau, Esq.
1 West St.,
Mineola, NY 10038
Telephone: (516) 571-3056
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Canale Files Suit in W.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al. The case is styled as Richard Canale,
II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, University of Rochester,
Case No. 6:21-cv-06257-EAW (W.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
http://www.ncaa.org/-- is a non-profit organization, which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendants appear pro se.
NATURES FLAVORS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Natures Flavors. The
case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Natures Flavors, Case No.
1:21-cv-02398 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nature's Flavors -- https://www.naturesflavors.com/ -- Nature's
Flavors carries a variety of natural and toxin-free everyday
products, from furniture and insect control to hair color and
mouthwash.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
NEW YORK LIFE: Faces Krohnengold ERISA Suit Over 401(k) Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Krohnengold, as representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the New York Life Insurance
Employee Progress Sharing Investment Plan, and the New York Life
Insurance Company Agents Progress Sharing Plan v. New York Life
Insurance Company; The Boards of Trustees of the New York Life
Insurance Employee Progress Sharing Investment Plan and the New
York Life Insurance Company Agents Progress Sharing Plan; Katherine
O'Brien; Anthony R. Malloy; Yie-Hsin Hung; Arthur A. Seter; Scott
L. Lenz; and Robert J. Hynes; and John and Jane Does 1-20, Case No.
1:21-cv-01778 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) as a representative on behalf of tens of thousands of
current and former employees and insurance agents of New York Life.
This suit is about corporate self-dealing and the prohibited
transfer of employees' retirement assets to Defendants at the
expense of the retirement savings of company employees and its
agents. Defendants are all fiduciaries and parties-in-interest of
the 401(k) Plans who are required by ERISA to act prudently and
solely in the interest of the Plans' participants when making
decisions with respect to 401(k) Plan investments.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties with respect to their disloyal and imprudent
management of the Plans in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of
participant investors who lost millions of dollars.
The Plaintiff brings this action to recover the losses caused by
Defendants' fiduciary breaches, disgorge the profits earned by
Defendants and their affiliates 1 as a result of these breaches,
prevent further mismanagement of the Plans, and obtain equitable
and other relief as provided by ERISA.
Mr. Krohnengold is a resident of Scarsdale, New York and is a
current participant in the Employee Progress Sharing Investment
Plan (the Employee 401(k) Plan). He worked for New York Life from
1988 through 2012. Mr. Krohnengold's individual account in the
Employee 401(k) Plan was invested in one or more of the New York
Life proprietary MainStay funds offered by the Employee 401(k) Plan
during the Class Period, and was defaulted into NYL's Fixed Dollar
Account.
The Plaintiff contends that like him substantially all other
participants in the Plans, was not provided any information
regarding the substance of deliberations, if any, of the Boards of
Trustees concerning the Plans' menu of investment options, and
otherwise has no knowledge of the substance of the deliberations.
The Plaintiff discovered his claims shortly before commencing this
action. He has suffered financial harm and has been injured by the
Defendants' unlawful conduct. In turn, New York Life has been
unjustly enriched from the various fees and expenses generated as a
result of Plaintiff's Employee 401(k) Plan investments.
New York Life Insurance Company is a mutual life insurance company
organized under the laws of the State of New York. Through a
network of related entities, it markets to the public (and its own
employees and agents) mutual funds, life insurance policies,
annuity contracts, financial contracts, retirement contracts, and
other money management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
Daniel R. Sutter, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
myau@cohenmilstein.com
slempert@cohenmilstein.com
dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Service Reductions on Subway Line
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Burns at radio.com reports that the MTA is facing a class
action lawsuit over service cuts on the C and F subway lines.
The Transport Workers Union Local 100 is leading the suit, claiming
the MTA enacted the cuts last year without notifying the mayor or
holding mandated public hearings, as required by law.
Back in April 2020, with a fraction of riders and an alarming
number of workers out sick at the height of the pandemic, the MTA
drastically cut back on service.
Since then, union president Eric Loegel said every line in the
system returned to a normal level of service, with the exception of
the C and F lines.
"A suit is being filed under what's called the Public Authorities
Law which in this case requires the transit authority to notify the
mayor about any plans of non-emergency service reductions, as well
as the City Council, and to our knowledge neither of those things
have happened," said union president Eric Loegel. "There's been no
public hearings, so they're trying to make permanent these service
reductions without following the law."
With riders gradually coming back, Loegel tells WCBS 880's Steve
Burns that "this is not the time to be reducing service or making
permanent any reduction in service."
"We should be going the opposite way. There should be more trains
out there," he said. "This is about safety."
Loegel said the lawsuit is meant to compel the MTA to restore
service.
The MTA in a statement said, "Nothing has changed for customers on
the C and F lines since nearly a year ago, and we continue to run
80 percent of service for approximately 30 percent of pre-pandemic
ridership. Beyond that, we will vigorously defend against these
claims in court." [GN]
NUTANIX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces the re-opening of the lead plaintiff
process in the class action lawsuit against Nutanix, Inc.
("Nutanix" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NTNX) pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). Plaintiffs pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 1,
2018 and May 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before March 22, 2021. Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified by the court,
and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an
attorney.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, the Company
made false and misleading statements to the market. Nutanix misled
investors about the health of its sales pipeline, customer base,
and sales productivity. The truth of the poor state of the
Company's sales prospects was partially revealed over the course of
time, causing shares to tumble. 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 Nutanix,
investors suffered damages.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]
ONTRAK INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on March 4 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California captioned Farhar v.
Ontrak, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:21-cv-01987) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Ontrak, Inc.
("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) securities between
November 5, 2020 and February 26, 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 Ontrak 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/ontrak-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 March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announced
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The
Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider
basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or
medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the coaching
model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the
customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than
46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, 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 Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company
on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on
achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical
outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak's
largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective
and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak;
(3) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion
of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an
outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; 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 Ontrak 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]
P.F. CHANG'S: 9th Cir. Reverses Krab Mix Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Esq., Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate, Esq., and
Alyson C. Tocicki, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, report that a split Ninth Circuit panel
recently reversed the dismissal of claims against P.F. Chang's
regarding the chain's use of the term "krab mix" in the ingredients
list for certain sushi rolls. Kang v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro,
No. 20-55138 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).
Plaintiff claimed he purchased P.F. Chang's "krab mix" sushi rolls
because the term "krab mix" led him to believe the rolls contained
at least some real crab meat, when in fact they contained none.
P.F. Chang's countered that reasonable consumers would be tipped
off by the fanciful spelling of "krab," as well as the fact that
other items on the same page of the P.F. Chang's menu listed "crab"
(spelled correctly) in their ingredients. Accordingly, P.F. Chang's
argued, a consumer confronted with both "crab" and "krab mix" on
the same page would not be misled into believing they are the same.
The district court agreed, and dismissed plaintiff's claims as
implausible on their face. In doing so, the court analogized to a
prior decision finding no reasonable consumer would be misled into
believing "Froot Loops" contain "Fruit." McKinnis v. Kellogg, 2007
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96106 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
The Ninth Circuit reversed, relying primarily on Williams v. Gerber
Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008). In Williams, the
defendant sold products labeled "Fruit Juice Snacks" with images of
fruits on the front label. The ingredients list on the side of the
box disclosed that the product did not actually contain juice from
any fruits pictured on the packaging. The Williams Court found the
defendant could not immunize itself against prominent, misleading
front-label claims by disclosing the truth about the product's
ingredients elsewhere. The majority held the same to be true in
this case -- just as the Williams court believed a consumer might
not look beyond representations on the front of a box to discover
an ingredients list displayed elsewhere on the packaging, the
majority here concluded a P.F. Chang's customer might not look
beyond the phrase "krab mix" to discover the term "crab" used
elsewhere on the same menu.
In a persuasive dissent, Judge Bennett criticized the majority for
failing to give the ordinary California consumer enough -- or any
-- credit. Importantly, Judge Bennett pointed out that the standard
for misrepresentation is not whether the "least sophisticated" or
"most gullible" consumer would be misled. According to Judge
Bennett, reasonable consumers in the food industry are prudent
enough to know that fanciful spellings materially change the
meaning of a word, since this kind of advertising is now
commonplace in the food industry. For instance, "cavi-art" is not
caviar, "Froot Loops" are not fruit, and "tofurky" is not turkey.
Judge Bennett concluded "nothing about 'krab mix' suggests that the
sushi rolls will contain real crab," and "wishful thinking on the
plaintiff's part" does not make for a plausible claim. Judge
Bennett also reiterated the district court's finding that the
context in which "krab mix" appeared (i.e., in close proximity to
other items labeled "crab") should clue consumers in.
P.F. Chang's joins the ranks of Williams and Bell v. Publix Super
Markets, 982 F.3d 468 (2020) as decisions likely to be embraced by
the advertising class action plaintiffs' bar. However, this
decision will not change the status quo that it is both common and
entirely appropriate for courts to dismiss as a matter of law
complaints alleging unreasonable understandings of advertising
claims which are cured by disclosures elsewhere on the advertising.
There are several recent and notable decisions from the Second and
Ninth Circuits recognizing this principle. For example:
In Fink v. Time Warner, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of plaintiffs' false advertising complaint, acknowledging that it
is "well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that
an allegedly deceptive advertisement would not have misled a
reasonable consumer," and that "the presence of a disclaimer or
similar clarifying language may defeat a claim of deception." 714
F.3d 739, 741-42 (2d Cir. 2013).
In Jessani v. Monini North America, the Second Circuit affirmed the
dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' complaint alleging that
reasonable consumers would take away the false message that a
flavored olive oil truthfully described as "truffle flavored"
contains real truffles. 744 F. App'x 18 (2d Cir. 2018). The Court
agreed with Monini, who Proskauer represented, that this was simply
not a reasonable takeaway in the overall context of its label, and
given the absence of truffles on the ingredient list.
In Ebner v. Fresh, the Ninth Circuit explained that Williams merely
"stands for the proposition that if the defendant commits an act of
deception, the presence of fine print revealing the truth is
insufficient to dispel that deception." 838 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir.
2016) (emphasis in original). In Ebner, the Ninth Circuit found it
was not plausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived as to
how much lip balm the defendant's product contained where the label
accurately stated its net weight.
In Razo v. Ashley Furniture Industries, the Ninth Circuit held that
the "district court properly granted summary judgment on Razo's
claims because a reasonable consumer would have read the
unambiguous and truthful disclosures placed on the front and back
of Ashley's DuraBlend hangtag." 782 Fed. Appx. 632, 633 (9th Cir.
2019).
In numerous recent lawsuits against confection makers, federal
district courts have dismissed claims alleging defendants'
"white"-labeled sugary goods deceived reasonable consumers into
thinking the products contain white chocolate, when they do not. In
dismissing these claims, courts noted that the ingredients list on
the packaging clearly did not include any mention of "white
chocolate." See our prior coverage of such cases involving Nestle
Tollhouse and Ghirardelli.
Further, the dissent warns against the inevitable harm that stems
from allowing such implausible claims to proceed further down the
litigation path -- the cost of defending these claims is not
inconsequential, and is ultimately passed onto consumers. It
remains to be seen if the Ninth Circuit will come to better
appreciate this fact and reverse course as this line of decisions
spawns increasing numbers of food labeling suits. [GN]
PAUL MILLER AUTO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Miller Auto
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Paul Miller Auto
Group, LLC d/b/a PaulMiller.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-01445 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Paul Miller Auto Group -- https://www.paulmiller.com/ -- operates
as a automobile dealership. The Company offers new and pre owned
luxury cars including Porsche, Bentley, Rolls Royce BMW, Range
Rover and Audi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Sued for Misappropriating Photographs in Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that on March 2, an
individual filed a class-action complaint in the Western District
of Washington against social media company PeopleConnect, Inc.,
which runs Classmates.com, a website designed to connect people
with their former classmates and colleagues, for misappropriating
the plaintiff and putative class's photographs in advertisements.
According to the complaint, the defendant is accused of "willfully
misappropriating the photographs, likenesses, images, and names of
Plaintiff and the class; willfully using those photographs,
likenesses, images, and names for the commercial purpose of selling
access to them in Classmates products and services; and willfully
using those photographs, likenesses, images, and names to
advertise, sell, and solicit purchases of Classmates services and
products; without obtaining prior consent from Plaintiff and the
class."
The plaintiff claimed that Classmates' business model "relies on
extracting personal information from school yearbooks, including
names, photographs, schools attended, and other biographical
information." Classmates then purportedly aggregates this
information and uses it to identify individuals, which it stores in
its database. The plaintiff noted that Classmates provides free
access to some of this information to the general public "to drive
users to purchase its two paid products" -- reprinted yearbooks,
and a monthly subscription -- and to "get page views from
non-paying users, from which Classmates profits by selling ad space
on its website." This alleged preview available to the
public-at-large provides a limited preview of the service by
providing a list of results for a particular school. The plaintiff
averred that "Classmates' free preview provides enough information
to identify an individual," while allegedly attempting to entice a
user to subscribe or pay for a yearbook.
The plaintiff asserted that when a user clicks on "Upgrade Your
Membership," they are "given an offer to sign up for Classmates'
monthly subscription service whereby a user is able to 'keep in
touch' with other classmates." Consequently, the plaintiff
contended that Classmates "uses the identities of Plaintiff and the
putative class to market its completely unrelated subscription
services" in violation of various laws, such as Ohio's Right of
Publicity law, which states that "a person shall not use any aspect
of an individual's persona for a commercial purpose."
The plaintiff also reiterated that she and the putative class did
not give Classmates consent to use their identities or likeness in
its advertisements. The plaintiff added that she "is not and has
never been a Classmates customer. She has no relationship with
Classmates whatsoever." The plaintiff stated that "(a)s the subject
of a commercial transaction, Plaintiff's personal identifiable
information disclosed by Classmates has commercial value. These
aspects of Plaintiff's identity are valuable to online advertisers
among others." Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that she "has not
been compensated by Classmates in any way for its use of her
identity."
The putative class consists of: "all Ohio residents who have
appeared in an advertisement preview for a Classmates product."
The count against the defendant is a violation of Ohio's Right of
Publicity. The plaintiff seeks class certification and for the
plaintiff and her counsel to represent the class, declaratory
relief, an award for damages, restitution, an injunction,
prejudgment interest, and an award for costs and fees.
The plaintiff is represented by Carson Noel PLLC and Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.
This lawsuit is similar to a case against Ancestry.com for
misappropriating people's photographs for advertising and
promotional purposes, which has since been dismissed. [GN]
PLUG POWER: Pomerantz Law Remimds of May 7 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Plug Power Inc. ("Plug Power" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
PLUG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-02402, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities between November 9,
2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Plug Power securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Plug provides comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions
focused on systems used to power electric motors in the electric
mobility and stationary power markets.
The complaint 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 would be
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related
to the review of classification of certain costs and the
recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2)
that the Company was reasonably likely to report material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 7, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%,
over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
PRODUCTION FRAMING: Faces Lopez Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Production Framing,
Inc. The case is captioned as Brynn Salvador Lopez Benavides, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Production
Framing, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00295745-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., March 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged employment-related issues.
Production Framing provides construction services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC
1901 Avenue Of The Stars, Ste 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN: Blackshear Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHANITA BLACKSHEAR, et al. v.
PROGRESSIVE MOUNTAIN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
21-SCCV-092401, was removed from the Georgia State Court of
Macon-Bibb County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia (Macon) on March 1, 2021.
The Middle District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:21-cv-00077-MTT to the proceeding.
The case arises from insurance-related claims demanding $5 million
in damages and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell.
The Plaintiffs include Teresa Coates, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.
The Defendants include Farm Bureau.
Progressive operates as an insurance firm. The Company offers auto,
homeowners, renters, motorcycle, boat, life, and health insurance
services. Progressive Casualty Insurance serves customers in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marvin A. Devlin, Esq.
Juanita Free Devlin, Esq.
6595 G Roswel Rd., Ste. 765
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (404) 538-6925
E-mail: mad@marvindevlin.com
juanita@marvindevlin.com
- and -
Chrisna D. Jones, Esq.
160 Clairemont Ave., Ste. 200
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 419-9494
Facsimile: (404) 465-3627
E-mail: cjones@chrisnajones.com
- and -
Daryl Von Yokely, Esq.
235 Peachtree St., Ste. 2212
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 876-5458
E-mail: dvy@yokelylaw.com
The Defendant Progressive Mountain is represented by:
Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
Tracey K. Ledbetter, Esq.
1114 Avenue of the Americas
The Grace Bldg., 40th Fl.
New York, NY 10036-7703
Telephone: (212) 389-5000
Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
E-mail: kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
traceyledbetter@eversheds-sutherland.com
The Defendant Farm Bureau appears pro se:
FARM BUREAU INSURANCE
120 Bacon Street
Irwinton, GA 31042
PUBMATIC INC: Unlawfully Processes Personal Data, Elliott Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO ELLIOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PUBMATIC, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01497-KAW (N.D.
Calif., March 2, 2021) alleges that PubMatic lacks a lawful basis
for processing personal data.
The Plaintiff contends that PubMatic's processing of personal data
without a lawful basis via the creation of cookie IDs and the
collection of associated browser-generated information constitutes
intrusive, extensive, and unexpected loss of control of the users'
personal data in violation of the General Data Protection
Regulation. PubMatic also lacks transparency due to the inadequate
or non-existent communication with users, defined under the GDPR as
data subjects, in violation of Articles 5(1)(a) and Articles 13-of
the GDPR.
The GDPR of the European Union requires businesses to protect the
personal data and privacy of natural persons. PubMatic creates and
places unique identifiers in the form of cookie IDs on internet
users' devices which allow it to read and share personal data from
that user. These cookie IDs and the data that they allow PubMatic
to collect constitute personal data protected by the GDPR.
Pursuant to the GDPR, in order to legally perform the activities
that PubMatic is performing, it must have either consent from the
user or a legitimate interest in processing the user's personal
data.
Any consent obtained from data subjects is inadequate because it is
either non-existent or not compliant with the GDPR. PubMatic cannot
rely on its legitimate interest in processing personal 2 data, as
such reliance is precluded by law. However, even if it were not
precluded as a matter of law, the balance of interests does not
support PubMatic.
Plaintiff Hugo Elliott is a victim of PubMatic's blatant disregard
for the privacy rights set forth in the GDPR.
Mr. Elliott files this action to recover the damages he, as well as
thousands of other citizens of the United Kingdom, have incurred
from PubMatic's wrongful conduct and to stop PubMatic's unlawful
practices of gathering, processing, and disseminating users'
personal data.
PubMatic is a digital advertising technology company that develops
online software and strategies for the digital publishing and
advertising industry aimed at reaching target audiences across
advertising formats and devices through the 8 use and dissemination
of personal data.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
E-mail: astraus@whitfieldbryson.com
QUANTUM GLOBAL: Federal Magistrate Judge Approves $174K Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal magistrate judge for the Northern District of California
approved a $175,000 class action settlement in the case of Taafua
v. Quantum Global Technologies.
This case regarded an alleged violation of the FCRA's requirement
of a stand-alone disclosure when seeking a consumer report for
employment purposes. In this case, the Plaintiff, Paniani Taafua,
had applied for employment with the defendant Quantum Global
Technologies, LLC (QGT) and had signed QGT's standard release form
authorizing them to request a consumer report on the applicant from
a third-party employment screening provider.
However, the QGT's standard form with this disclosure also
contained a waiver for release of liability as well. The plaintiff
alleges that this violates the FCRA's rules which state that the
disclosure is clear, conspicuous, and consists only of the
disclosure. The court agrees to note in an earlier statement that
the Ninth Circuit Court had previously held that a liability waiver
cannot be contained in the same document as the disclosure.
The court rejected an initial settlement of $125,902 before
permitting a final settlement of $174,980 between QGT and Taafua,
as well as the more than 1,000 class members. [GN]
RAINIER BANK: Sued for Refusing to Honor Old Bonds
--------------------------------------------------
Thomas Clouse, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that a
Spokane woman's quest to cash in on a small investment her father
made for her 40 years ago has turned into a federal lawsuit against
a bank with a track record of failing to honor old bonds.
Heather Carlon, 56, of Spokane, said her father approached her in
2019 to remind her that he had purchased a bond as an investment on
Sept. 12, 1980, from a Rainier Bank branch in Medical Lake.
The bond wasn't worth much -- $138.56 -- but the interest listed on
the note was 11.25% and its value should have grown considerably
over the course of 39 years.
"After that, I started trying to do a little bit of research about
what happened to Rainier Bank," Carlon said. "I was hitting a dead
end. I talked with people at my credit union. They were able to
locate Mr. Harrison . . . who had helped other people with Rainier
Bank bonds."
Eric Harrison, a Seattle attorney, has sued KeyBank three times
previously to force it to honor bonds sold by Rainier Bank.
Harrison noted Rainier Bank was purchased in 1987 and eventually
split up among KeyBank, U.S. Bank and Bank of America.
Harrison "helped me figure out it was actually KeyBank that ended
up with the branch where my bond had been purchased," Carlon said.
With that information, Carlon last summer drove to the nearest
KeyBank branch, located in Wilbur in Lincoln County. She took the
bond her father gave her and tried to cash it in.
The bank made a photocopy of the bond and told her they would call
her back in a couple of days.
"I heard several weeks later," Carlon said.
Instead of a phone call, Carlon received an email from KeyBank
indicating it had no legal responsibility or obligation to redeem
the bond.
"I wasn't surprised, because by then I knew the history of how
other people had not been able to redeem their bank bonds," she
said.
According to an escalating interest calculator, Carlon's investment
of $138.56 with 11.25% interest should be worth about $10,000
today.
KeyBank, based in Cleveland, was contacted by phone twice on March
3 for comment about the pending lawsuit. The company ended each
call without responding.
Following her interaction last year, Carlon and Harrison filed a
civil lawsuit Feb. 24 in Spokane federal court.
As part of the suit, Harrison is asking a judge to give it
class-action status to represent all holders of Rainier bonds for
which KeyBank can be held responsible.
According to court records, KeyBank has not responded to the suit.
Harrison said it's unclear how many people, like Carlon, still hold
the old Rainier Bank notes. But he wrote in the complaint that
based on the serial numbers on the bonds "litigated to date,
Rainier Bank issued thousands of Bonds prior to the branch
acquisitions."
Carlon said her father also bought a similar bond for her sister.
"I started out just wanting to redeem my bond," she said. "But at
this point, I would like them to redeem bonds for everybody else."
The lawsuit has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Salvador
Mendoza Jr.
"As people find these bonds in safe deposit boxes and file
cabinets, I would like a process in place so people can easily
redeem their bonds," Carlon said. "So each person doesn't have to
file a lawsuit to redeem it."
Once in 2018 and twice in 2019, Harrison filed similar suits
against KeyBank under similar circumstances. Each time, KeyBank
paid his clients to settle the suits, he said.
"They have been using this money for the past 40 years," Harrison
said of the banks. "For them to say this in 2020, you've just got
to throw up your hands." [GN]
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faces Ramsey Suit Over Lack of Financial Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RAMSEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, INC., RANDOLPH L. HOWARD,
CYNTHIA J. WARNER, CHAD STONE, and TODD ROBINSON, Case No.
1:21-cv-01832 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Renewable Energy securities between May 3, 2018 and February 25,
2021, inclusive (the Class Period) pursuing claims against the the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The biodiesel tax credit ("BTC") is a federal biodiesel mixture
excise tax credit whereby the first person to blend pure
biomass-based diesel with petroleum-based diesel fuel receives a
$1.00-per-gallon refundable tax credit. It is an incentive shared
across the advanced biofuel production and distribution chain
through routine, daily trading and negotiation. The BTC was first
implemented on January 1, 2005, but has been allowed to lapse and
then been reinstated, sometimes retrospectively. In February 2018,
the BTC was retroactively reinstated for 2017, but was not
reinstated for 2018. In December 2019, the BTC was retroactively
reinstated for 2018 and 2019 and made effective from January 2020
through December 2022.
On February 25, 2021, after the market closed, Renewable Energy
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year
2020 financial results. Therein, the Company revealed that it would
restate "$38.2 million in cumulative revenue from January 2018
through September 30, 2020" because Renewable Energy was not the
"proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold
between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020." Renewable Energy
further stated that it had reached an agreement with the Internal
Revenue Service "on a $40.5 million assessment, excluding interest"
to correct these claims.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $77.77 per share on
February 26, 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 that due to failures in the diesel additive system,
petroleum diesel was not periodically added to certain loads by the
Company and was instead added by the Company's customers.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damage.
Plaintiff David Ramsey purchased Renewable Energy securities during
the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged
federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions.
Renewable Energy provides clean, low carbon transportation fuels.
It is North America's largest producer of advanced biofuels. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 4 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. ("Renewable Energy" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: REGI) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 3,
2018 and February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 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. Renewable Energy suffered failures in its
diesel additive system, resulting in petroleum diesel sometimes
being added by customers instead of by the Company. Due to this
breakdown, the Company was not the proper claimant of certain BTC
payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September
30, 2020. As a result, the Company's revenue and net income were
overstated for certain periods. 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 Renewable
Energy, 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]
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 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 Sequential
Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG) securities between November 3,
2016 and December 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 17, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On February 28, 2018, Sequential Brands Group issued a press
released entitled "Sequential Brands Group Announces Fourth Quarter
and Full Year 2017 Financial Results" which belatedly announced the
goodwill adjustment.
On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $6.80 per
share, or 8%, to close at $76.00 per share on February 28, 2018.
Then on December 11, 2020, the SEC filed a Complaint alleging that
the Company failed "to take into consideration clear, objective
evidence of likely goodwill impairment, which avoided and delayed a
material write down to goodwill in the fourth quarter of 2016 and
the first three quarters of 2017 (the 'Relevant Period')."
On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $2.03 per
share, or 11%, to close at $16.20 per share on December 11, 2020.
The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in late 2016, the Company knew
or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2) the
Company avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill in
late 2016 through 2017; (3) the Company understated its operating
expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income
from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017;
(4) the Company's internal controls were deficient; (5) the Company
has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties,
deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control
violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
If you purchased Sequential Brands Group 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. [GN]
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Schall Law Reminds of May 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Sequential
Brands Group, Inc. ("Sequential Brands" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
SQBG) 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 November
3, 2016 and December 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 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. Sequential Brands knew or should have
known in late 2016 that its goodwill was impaired. The Company used
every tactic possible to delay the material write down in goodwill
starting in late 2016 and into 2017. The Company materially
understated its operating expenses and net loss while
simultaneously overstating its income from operations, goodwill,
and assets during this period. The Company failed to maintain
internal controls. 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 Sequential
Brands, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
SHRINIKA INVESTMENTS: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Love Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Love v. Shrinika Investments, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, 2:21-cv-00384-JAM-JDP (E.D. Calif., March 2,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated challenging the reservation policies and practices of a
place of lodging regarding lack of information provided on the
hotel's reservation Website that would permit the plaintiff to
determine if there are rooms that would work for him in violation
of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff planned on making a trip
in August of 2021 to Fairfield, California, area. He chose the
Super 8 by Wyndham Fairfield located at 2170 N. Texas Fairfield,
California because this hotel was at a desirable price and
location. Due to the Plaintiff's condition, he is unable to, or
seriously challenged in his ability to, stand, ambulate, reach
objects mounted at heights above his shoulders, transfer from his
chair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects.
Thus, the Plaintiff needs an accessible guestroom and he needs to
be given information about accessible features in hotel rooms so
that he can confidently book those rooms and travel independently
and safely. On January 29, 2021, while sitting bodily in
California, the Plaintiff went to the Super 8 by Wyndham Fairfield
reservation Website at
https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/super-8/fairfield-california/super-8-fairfield-ca
seeking to book an accessible room at the location.
The Website reservation system is owned and operated by the
Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at Super
8 by Wyndham Fairfield. The Plaintiff found that there was
insufficient information about the accessible features in the
"accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for him, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff contends that he cannot transfer from his wheelchair
to a toilet unless there are grab bars at the toilet to facilitate
that transfer. But the Hotel reservation Website does not provide
any information about the existence of grab bars for the accessible
guestroom toilets. This is critical information for him, he
adds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
Mail: 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
SIX FLAGS: Settlement in Credit Card Info Suit Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the
putative class action suits related to the printing of more than
the last five digits of a credit or debit card number entered.
During 2017, four putative class action complaints were filed
against Holdings or one of its subsidiaries. Complaints were filed
on August 11, 2017, in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois;
on September 1, 2017, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia; on September 11, 2017, in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California; and on November
30, 2017, in the Superior Court of Ocean County, New Jersey.
The complaints allege that the company, in violation of federal
law, printed more than the last five digits of a credit or debit
card number on customers' receipts and/or the expiration dates of
those cards.
A willful violation may subject a company to liability for actual
damages or statutory damages between $100 and $1,000 per person,
punitive damages in an amount determined by a court and reasonable
attorneys' fees, all of which are sought by the plaintiffs.
The complaints do not allege that any information was misused. On
October 20, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the lawsuits, for an immaterial amount, and preliminary
approval was granted by the court on December 3, 2020.
All four lawsuits are stayed pending final approval of the
settlement by the court.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Still Defends Suit Over Collection of Biometric Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit over the
collection of biometric data.
On January 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company (Holdings) in the Circuit Court of Lake County,
Illinois. On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC was added as a
defendant.
The complaint asserts that the company violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") in connection with the
admission of season pass holders and members through the finger
scan program that commenced in the 2014 operating season at Six
Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and seeks statutory
damages, attorneys' fees and an injunction.
An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 if a company
is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii) $5,000 if found
to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA, plus reasonable
attorneys' fees in each case.
The complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated. On April 7, 2017, the trial court certified two
questions for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court of the
Second District. On June 7, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court
granted our motion to appeal.
Accordingly, two questions regarding the interpretation of BIPA
were certified for consideration by the Illinois Appellate Court.
On December 21, 2017, the Illinois Appellate Court found in the
company's favor, holding that the plaintiff had to allege more than
a technical violation of BIPA and had to be injured in some way in
order to have a right of action.
On March 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed a petition for leave to
appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. On May 30, 2018, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's leave to appeal and oral
arguments were heard on November 20, 2018.
On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of
the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff does not need to allege
an actual injury beyond the violation of his rights under BIPA in
order to proceed with a complaint.
Six Flags said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against this litigation. The amount we have recorded is
based on our estimate of the probable outcome of this litigation."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
SIX FLAGS: Suit Against Park Management Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Park
Management Corp. continues to defend a purported class action suit
initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery
Kingdom.
On February 20, 2020, a complaint was filed against Park Management
Corp. in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf
of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags
Discovery Kingdom.
The complaint alleges violations of California law governing
payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks
statutory damages under California law and attorneys' fees costs.
The company intends to vigorously defend ourselves against this
litigation.
Six Flags said, "Since this litigation is in an early stage, the
outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of
loss or range of loss cannot be made."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9,
1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in
the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19
regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately
4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically
diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand
Prairie, Texas.
ST. ANNE'S CREDIT: Souza Files FDCPA Suit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against St. Anne's Credit
Union. The case is styled as Heather Souza, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. St. Anne's Credit Union,
Case No. 1:21-cv-10472-PBS (D. Mass., March 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act for Banks and Banking.
St. Anne's Credit Union -- https://www.stannes.com/ -- is a local
Credit Union providing an array of banking products and
personalized services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine M. Craig, Esq.
SHAHEEN & GORDON, P.A.
107 Storrs Street
PO Box 2703
Concord, NH 03302-2703
Phone: (603) 749-5000
Fax: (603) 749-1838
Email: ccraig@shaheengordon.com
T.D. BANK: New York Court Dismisses Manship Suit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAYA MANSHIP, Plaintiff v. T.D. BANK, N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-CV-0329 (GTS/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Glenn T. Suddaby
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to state a claim.
In her putative consumer protection class action against the
Defendant, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant charged her
(along with all other class members) a $1 monthly fee to receive
their account statements in paper form in violation of N.Y. Gen.
Bus. Law Section 399-zzz (McKinney 2011). This law prohibits the
charging of paper statement fees in connection with billing
statements in certain circumstances. Based on these factual
allegations, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant committed a
deceptive act and practice under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Section 349
(McKinney 2014).
Currently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's Complaint. In support of its motion to dismiss, the
Defendant asserts the following three alternative arguments. First
it says the Plaintiff's claim is preempted by the National Bank Act
("NBA") because deposit-taking powers are reserved exclusively for
the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ("OCC"), and
the Plaintiff's interpretation of Section 399-zzz would prevent
Defendant from exercising its federally authorized power to charge
non-interest fees.
Second, even if Section 399-zzz does not improperly regulate the
Defendant's ability to assess banking fees, the Defendant argues
that the statute is nevertheless unconstitutional under the First
Amendment (as it is applied to the Defendant's paper statement fee)
because (a) it limits the Defendant's communication of fees and
pricing to its customers thereby regulating the Defendant's speech,
and (b) it does not survive intermediate scrutiny in that Section
399-zzz does not "directly advance" any governmental interest, nor
is it narrowly tailored to any apparent governmental interest.
Third, even if the Plaintiff's claim is not preempted, and even if
Section 399-zzz survives First Amendment scrutiny, the Plaintiff
has failed to plead an actionable claim for relief because (a) she
did not plead a violation of Section 399-zzz, and (b) the Plaintiff
did not plead a separate violation of Section 349 in that there is
nothing deceptive about the Defendant's paper statement fee (and
the Plaintiff does not allege otherwise).
Generally, in opposition to the Defendant's motion, the Plaintiff
asserts the following three arguments: (1) Section 399-zzz is not
preempted by the NBA because the New York State legislature acted
pursuant to its police powers when it enacted the consumer
protection statute that is generally applicable and does not
significantly interfere with the Defendant's federally authorized
powers; (2) Section 399-zzz is constitutional because (a) the
statute does not regulate Defendant's speech but its conduct, and
(b) Defendant's proffered interpretation of the statute is
improper; and (3) the Defendant's account statements are "paper
billing statements" and thereby, under Section 399-zzz, subject the
Defendant to liability under Section 349 because (a) Section
399-zzz applies to all businesses, including the Defendant, and (b)
the Defendant's account statements are within the scope of Section
399-zzz.
Generally, in reply to the Plaintiff's response, the Defendant
repeats its original arguments, and clarifies them by arguing as
follows: (1) Section 399-zzz significantly interferes with the
Defendant's exercise of its national banking powers by prohibiting
it from exercising its authority under 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4002 to
set non-interest charges and fees, and the Defendant's decision to
charge a paper fee is clearly a matter of judgment within its
federally authorized powers; (2) even if Section 399-zzz does not
improperly regulate the Defendant's ability to assess banking fees,
it unconstitutionally restricts the manner in which it can
communicate those fees; and (3) the Plaintiff has not alleged facts
plausibly suggesting a violation of Section 399-zzz.
First, Judge Suddaby holds that Section 399-zzz is not preempted by
the NBA or the OCC's regulations of national banks. He finds the
Defendant has incorrectly framed the OCC as the exclusive authority
to regulate national banks like Defendant. The OCC regulations
authorize a national bank to charge "non-interest charges and fees"
only when they relate to "sound banking judgment and safe banking
principles." He says the Defendant's paper statement fee does not
involve a banking practice or service because it does not involve
banking concept or principle. Without reaching the question of
whether charging an individual a paper statement fee amounts to
"sound banking judgment," Judge finds it clear from the language of
Section 399-zzz that paper statement fees are not limited to only
banking institutions, and that the statute is a rule of general
application.
Granted, the Defendant argues that Section 399-zzz prohibits it
from exercising its authority under 12 C.F.R. Section 7.4002 to set
non-interest charges and fees, the statute does not prevent or
significantly interfere with the Defendant's exercise of its
powers. However, there is a lack of guidance from the OCC with
respect to paper statement fees, and in any event, the Defendant
can circumvent the statute by changing its description from a "fee"
to a "credit." By recognizing little practical difference between
the Defendant's paper statement "fee" and an electronic statement
"credit," Section 399-zzz does not significantly interfere with
Defendant or its exercise of its powers to charge its customers for
a paper statement.
Second, after carefully considering the matter, the Judge holds
that Section 399-zzz violates the First Amendment and is therefore
deemed unconstitutional. He finds that Section 399-zzz regulates
the communication of fees rather than merely the price itself. he
also finds that Section 399-zzz does not directly advance the
State's interest in protecting its consumers from harmful conduct.
Although Section 399-zzz prohibits businesses from imposing charges
associated with paper statements on consumers who elect to receive
paper statements, the statute does not prohibit businesses from
offering "incentives" or "credits" to individuals who choose
electronic billing.
In any event, the Judge holds that even if he were to find that
Section 399-zzz directly advances such a substantial State
interest, he would not find that it is narrowly tailored in doing
so. Although Section 399-zzz permits businesses to commit the
otherwise-offending practice by "offering consumers a credit or
other incentive to elect a specific payment or billing option," it
is not entirely clear if such "other incentives" include "refunds,"
"rebates," and "discounts." Moreover, Section 399-zzz provides,
"Every violation of this section will be deemed a deceptive act and
practice." Simply stated, the blanket penalty, coupled with the
vague language "credit or other incentive," could unnecessarily
prohibit non-misleading, accurate speech.
Third, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff failed to State a claim
under Section 349. He finds that because he determined that
Section 399-zzz is a law of general application above in Part
III.A. of the Decision and Order, and that the Defendant is an
association, the language of Section 399-zzz clearly encompasses
the Defendant; however, even if the Defendant were not an
association, the Judge would find that Defendant is subject to
Section 399-zzz as an "other business entity."
Moreover, because the Defendant's billing statement fits the
definition of both a "bill," and the term "statement," the plain
language of the statute indicates the New York State Legislature
intended to include the Defendant's bank account statement within
the scope of Section 399-zzz. Finally, even if a debtor-creditor
relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the
Defendant's charges for services performed would nevertheless
amount to a billing statement (regardless of whether the Defendant
is the debtor or creditor).
For these reasons, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint
must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Because he has
determined that Section 399-zzz unconstitutionally infringes on the
Defendant's First Amendment rights, the Judge has no choice but to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant with prejudice.
Even if this were not the case though, he would find that the
other pleading defects in the Plaintiff's detailed Complaint, which
was drafted with the assistance of counsel, are substantive and not
merely formal.
Accordingly, Judge Suddaby granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4b6dd45m from Leagle.com.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., SHANON J. CARSON, ESQ. -- scarson@bm.net
-- JOSEPH C. HASHMALL, ESQ. -- jhashmall@bm.net -- PATRICK F.
MADDEN, ESQ. -- pmadden@bm.net -- in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Counsel for Plaintiff.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, ALLEN BURTON, ESQ. -- aburton@omm.com --
DANIELLE OAKLEY, ESQ., in New York City, Counsel for Defendant.
HARRIS, BEACH LAW FIRM PLLC, JAMES P. NONKES, ESQ. --
jnonkes@harrisbeach.com -- in Pittsford, New York, Co-counsel for
Defendant.
TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION: Williams Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION
OF GRAND ISLAND, INC., et al. The case is styled as Tattiana
Bennett Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TREGO/DUGAN AVIATION OF GRAND ISLAND, INC.;
DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE; Case No. CGC21590239 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 18, 2021).
The case type is stated as "OTHER NON EXEMPT COMPLAINTS."
The Trego Dugan -- https://www.trego-dugan.com/ -- family of
companies specializes in aviation services including jet
management, private jet charter, aircraft acquisition, jet and
turboprop maintenance, avionics, and FBO Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kashif Haque, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM PC
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: khaque@aegislawfirm.com
UNITED AMERICAN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United American
Industries, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. United
American Industries, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02399 (S.D.N.Y., March
18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
United American Industries Inc., dba Wisdom Natural Brands --
https://www.wisdomnaturalbrands.com/ -- is in the Food and Beverage
Wholesalers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
UNITED STATES: NCLA Files Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------
The laws of all fifty states provide the remedy of eviction through
state processes to retake possession of a home you have rented out.
But a national eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2020 to "prevent" the
spread of COVID-19 denies Plaintiffs the only lawful means
available to them to evict a delinquent tenant—access to the
courts. Today, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan,
nonprofit civil rights group, filed a class-action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on behalf of
Asa Mossman of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and many other blameless housing
providers left powerless against the CDC's lawless order.
NCLA argues that agencies have no inherent power to make law, and
nothing in the relevant statutes or regulations gives CDC the power
to issue an eviction moratorium order. Two federal courts in less
than one week have agreed that CDC's order is invalid. Last the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio ruled in
Skyworks, LTD., et al., v. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, et al. that the nationwide moratorium exceeded the
agency's statutory authority. And earlier, the Western District of
Tennessee ruled similarly in the case of Tiger Lily, LLC, et al. v.
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.
NCLA had filed amicus briefs in both cases.
CDC has yet to meet its obligation of showing that state actions
were inadequate or that its eviction moratorium was necessary to
stop the spread of COVID-19 as required by law. Nevertheless, the
CDC order declares that anyone who violates the order faces up to
$500,000 in fines or jail time, and housing providers like
Plaintiffs here cannot pursue evictions. But if they default and
lose their property, the banks can still evict! These Plaintiffs,
most of whom are mom-and-pop housing providers, have been
unexpectedly targeted by unelected agency bureaucrats, with no
authority over housing or state courts, using a rule that only
gives CDC authority to regulate sick livestock. The complaint also
argues that the order violates the U.S. Constitution because CDC
has not identified any act of Congress that confers upon it the
power to halt evictions or preempt state landlord-tenant laws. The
CDC's order also impermissibly commandeers state courts and state
officers to apply, enforce, and implement an unconstitutional
federal law.
By denying access to the state courts, the CDC order exceeds
Constitutional limits on the federal government and violates the
rights of tens of thousands of Americans based on the say-so of an
unelected bureaucrat. NCLA is hopeful, especially given the recent
outcomes in Ohio and Tennessee, that the Northern District of Iowa
will follow suit and reject the CDC's effort to seize control of
state law on such an insupportable basis.
NCLA released the following statements:
"Mr. Mossman and the other housing providers in this suit are being
ordered by CDC to provide homes for free with no ability to recover
their property when tenants fail to pay their contractual
obligations. There is little to no chance any of these housing
providers, who pay their mortgages and property taxes, keep up with
the maintenance and provide a livable space, will recover their
losses. We file this action on behalf of these plaintiffs but also
for the entire class of blameless housing providers who have been
irreparably injured by the CDC order."
— John Vecchione, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel
"CDC insists that its order does not hurt housing providers because
they can eventually seek back rent from their tenants in state
court. But the longer this moratorium continues, the less hope that
plaintiffs have of ever seeing a dime of what they're owed. Yet
they must continue to pay their mortgages and property taxes on
rental properties that have not produced any rental income in six
months to a year."
— Jared McClain, NCLA Litigation Counsel
"CDC has unlawfully extended its nationwide eviction moratorium to
March 31, and it seems bound and determined to extend this gross
violation of housing providers' civil liberties even further.
Despite three separate federal courts now ruling the agency's
conduct out of bounds, CDC continues its misconduct. If state or
federal authorities want to keep people from being evicted, they
need to provide them rental assistance. Imposing a fake quarantine
that vastly exceeds CDC's power is hogwash. This lawsuit provides
the court with an opportunity to end this civil liberties nightmare
once and for all." [GN]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Moradpour Securities Suit Over Stock Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEYSAM MORADPOUR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC., ANAND GOPALAN, and
ANDREW HAMER, Case No. 3:21-cv-01486 (N.D. Calif., March 2, 2021)
is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Velodyne securities between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") pursuing
claims against the the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.
On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.
On this news, Velodyne's common stock allegedly fell $3.14, or
approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22,
2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. Additionally, Velodyne's
warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per
warrant on February 22, 2021.
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 certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to
operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their
dealings with the Company's officers and directors, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased Velodyne securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal
securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.
Velodyne provides solutions to develop safe automated systems
including real-time surround view lidar sensors. The Company became
a public entity on or about September 29, 2020 when it merged with
Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition company. The
Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
VELODYNE LIDAR: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
VLDR; VLDRW) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-01736, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne securities between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Velodyne securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Velodyne provides solutions to develop safe automated systems
including real-time surround view lidar sensors. The Company became
a public entity on or about September 29, 2020 when it merged with
Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition company.
The complaint 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 certain of Velodyne's
directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity,
and candor in their dealings with the Company's officers and
directors; (2) that the Company was investigating the foregoing
matters; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.
On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants
fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on
February 22, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]
WHOLESOME SWEETENERS: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wholesome Sweeteners,
Incorporated. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wholesome
Sweeteners, Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-02400 (S.D.N.Y., March
18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wholesome -- https://wholesomesweet.com/ -- provides Fair Trade,
Organic & Non-GMO sugars, syrups, agave, stevia zero calorie
sweeteners & allergy-friendly candy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
WRITERS GUILD: Suit Claims "Sweetheart" Deal Between Viacom
-----------------------------------------------------------
hollywoodreporter.com reports that former 'Key & Peele' showrunner
Jay Martel is leading a suit that alleges the WGA has breached its
duty of fair representation with respect to royalties owed comedy
writers like those who work on 'The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.'
Are some of television's top comedy writers getting all the money
they can from the fact that thousands of episodes are available on
streaming platforms? Perhaps not, according to a new lawsuit. On a
putative class action was brought alleging that Viacom's Comedy
Central units are breaching a collective bargaining agreement --
and that the Writers Guild is maintaining a clandestine settlement
agreement.
Former Key & Peele showrunner Jay Martel is leading the charge with
a suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
His complaint alleges that for years, Viacom subsidiaries failed to
abide by the terms of the CBA "by improperly computing or simply
not paying residuals owed thereunder for the use of television
motion pictures in new media, in particular with respect to
ad-supported video-on-demand services. The Employer Defendants
clandestinely undertook this pattern and practice across dozens of
television programs (including, by way of example, Key & Peele, The
Daily Show with Trevor Noah, and Tosh.0)."
A settlement, one that Martel characterizes as a "sweetheart deal,"
was then allegedly worked out between the Viacom units and the WGA.
It "wip[ed] out the Employer Defendants' historical liabilities
across the Series in exchange for a single paltry lump-sum
payment."
How much? That's unclear.
"The WGA and the Employer Defendants then proceeded to bury the
Settlement Agreement in confidentiality," continues the complaint,
later adding that the concealment resulted in the non-discovery of
the "startling inadequacy of the Settlement Payment."
Martel asserts that Viacom has reaped "massive windfalls from
exploitation" of the episodes while the settlement "represents a
colossal failure of the WGA to adequately discharge its duty of
fair representation," the result of a union that "failed to
undertake even basic investigatory steps that would have bolstered
its claims in arbitration" and "can only be explained by a lack of
a sincere effort to protect Class members' rights."
Viacom hasn't yet commented.
In a statement provided to THR, WGA West acknowledges the
settlement and sources some potential frustration. According to the
statement: "The WGAW filed a claim against Viacom for failure to
pay proper residuals on a number of their shows. The case settled
prior to arbitration for the full amount owed to writers, plus
interest payments and penalties for failure to report. The writer's
frustration with the outcome stems from the fact that current
industry collective bargaining agreements provide a fixed payment
for the first year of free streaming and allow companies to exclude
significant 'promotional' use of program excerpts from residuals
payments. That's a frustration the WGA shares, but it can only be
solved in collective bargaining, not via arbitration, and much less
by meritless lawsuits." [GN]
XL FLEET: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 21-cv-02171, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired XL Fleet securities between October 2, 2020 and
March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased XL Fleet securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial
and municipal fleets in North America. The Company offers hybrid
and plug-in hybrid electric drive systems.
XL Fleet formed via merger of XL Hybrids, Inc. and Pivotal
Investment Corporation II ("Pivotal"), which closed on or about
December 22, 2020. Pivotal was a special purpose acquisition
company incorporated for the purpose of entering into a merger,
share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase,
recapitalization, reorganization or similar business combination
with one or more businesses or entities.
The complaint 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: (i) XL Fleet's salespeople
were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the
Company's reported sales and backlog; (ii) at least eighteen of the
thirty-three customers that XL featured were inactive and had not
placed an order since 2019; (iii) XL's technology had been
materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings;
(iv) XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new
products on the announced timelines; and (v) 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.
On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters") published
a report entitled "XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash,"
alleging, among other things, that salespeople "were pressured to
inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's
board and investors" and that "customer reorder rates are in
reality quite low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues."
Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that
"at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy
Waters also claimed that XL Fleet has "weak technology" and that
"XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly
promotional" because the task is "too technologically complex for
XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.09 per share, or
13%, to close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69
per share, or 19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close
at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]
[*] 99 U.S. Securities Class Action Settlements Approved in 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Traders Magazine reports that the world was truly turned upside
down in 2020 when the novel Coronavirus became the world's
deadliest pandemic in more than a century. The global turmoil over
the last year also affected investor opportunities to address
allegations of fraud against publicly traded companies.
With different environmental and health factors affecting global
economics, United States Federal and State Courts adapted quickly
to the new norms and remained adamant in performing its functions.
Despite the dramatic decline in newly filed cases of investor
complaints in both Federal and State courts throughout 2020, the
quantity of traditional class action settlements remained steady,
while the settlement amounts increased nominally by 3 percent from
$3.17 billion in 2019.
Looking back at the full year of 2020, ISS Securities Class Action
Services verified 99 approved monetary class action settlements in
the U.S. These cases amounted to $3.26 billion of settlement funds
available for distribution to eligible members of the settlement
classes.
Of the 99 U.S. settlements in 2020, 76 cases received judgment in
the Federal Courts amounting to $3.04 billion, while 23 cases
received judgment in the State Courts amounting to $229.7 million.
The timing of settlements is of note, as the first quarter of 2020
had 18 settlements, while the final three quarters of 2020, amid
the COVID-19 pandemic, averaged a higher quantity at 27 settlements
per quarter.
An analysis of the 76 Federal settlements, 72 were alleged with
Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices (or Rule 10b-5
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934). It is important to
take note that 13 of the 76 Federal settlements were concurrently
alleged with Civil Liabilities on Account of False Registration
Statement ("Section 11" of the Securities Act of 1933). In
addition, only three settlements were focused on Section 11 claims,
while one received judgment related to claims resulting from a
corporate action settled in the Federal Courts. Of the analysis
from 23 State settlements, 15 were related to corporate
transactions and seven were alleged with Section 11 claims.
With regard to the 99 settlements in 2020, ISS SCAS identified:
* 23 settlements related to companies that completed their stock
offerings
* 16 settlements which stemmed from corporate transactions
* Nine settlements with alleged violations of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
Furthermore, two companies identified restated their financials,
and eight companies noted insider trading related settlements.
Interestingly, two companies, which settled during 2020, had
previously filed for bankruptcy and five companies are listed in
the S&P 500 index.
In terms of court locations, it's not surprising that the most
active Federal court was the U.S.D.C. New York (Southern) with 15
settlements, including two of the three largest settlements of
2020. The next most active location was the U.S.D.C. New York
(Eastern) and U.S.D.C. New Jersey, with seven and six settlements,
respectively. In State court, the most active locations were the
Delaware Chancery Court, which rendered judgment to nine
settlements, followed by the New York Supreme Court (New York
County) and Nevada District Court, with two each.
Four of the settlements in 2020 delivered significant settlement
amounts to be included within a newly published Top 100 publication
of largest U.S. settlements of all-time, including:
* American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. - $1.025 Billion
* First Solar, Inc. - $350 Million
* Signet Jewelers Ltd. - $240 Million
* SCANA Corporation - $192.5 Million
Interestingly, the top four settlements noted above all were
alleged with Rule 10b-5 violations. The top two cases noted above
were both led by lead counsel, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. The
third and fourth largest cases of 2020 were both led by lead
counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, with Labaton
Sucharow as co-lead counsel on the SCANA Corp. action. The top four
settlements from 2020 surpassed $1.8 billion in shareholder
recoveries or 55 percent of the total value from all traditional
U.S. class action settlements in 2020.
For eligible investors who filed claims in 2020, A.B. Data was the
most widely court appointed claims administrator with 23
settlements and Gilardi & Co. was the second most active claims
administrator with 18 settlements. In terms of highest dollar value
of settlements, Gilardi & Co. handled claims worth $1.57 billion,
while JND Legal Administrator was second with $631.3 million.
As of this publication, 15 U.S. settlements have now surpassed the
$1 billion threshold.
Looking ahead, it appears likely that 2021 will have continued
activity in driving shareholder recoveries. A few 2021 high profile
settlements have already occurred, including a $1.21 billion
settlement with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and a SEC
disgorgement for $500 million with Wells Fargo & Company. Other
prominent actions are making their way through the legal process
and scheduled settlement hearings show a handful of actions above
the $100 million threshold, including Snap, Inc. at $187.5 Million
(combining both the Federal and State settlements). Both Valeant
and Snap are large enough settlements to enter next year's Top 100
report. [GN]
[*] Class-Action Settlements Hold Steady, Despite Pandemic
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Croce at pionline.com reports that settlements in securities
class-action cases in 2020 were in line with previous years,
despite the COVID-19 pandemic disruption, according to a report
released by Cornerstone Research.
The report, Securities Class Action Settlements: 2020 Review and
Analysis, found that courts approved 77 settlements totaling $4.2
billion in 2020, up from the 74 settlements totaling $2.1 billion
the previous year. Moreover, the median settlement value in 2020 --
$10.1 million -- was down 13% from 2019 but was still 19% higher
than the prior nine-year median. The average settlement amount in
2020 was $54.5 million, representing a 15% increase over the prior
nine-year average, the report said.
"Any disruption in settlement rates as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic appears to have been temporary, with the overall number of
settlements for 2020 in line with recent years," said Laura E.
Simmons, a Cornerstone Research senior adviser and report
co-author, in a news release. "It will likely be at least a couple
of years before we learn whether COVID-19-related allegations have
had an impact on other settlement trends."
The proportion of settlements with public pension plan lead
plaintiffs rebounded to 40% in 2020, up from the all-time-low of
27% in 2019. The report also found that in larger cases — those
with "simplified tiered damages" greater than $250 million --
nearly 60% had a public pension plan as lead plaintiff.
"In several respects, after an unusual year in 2019, cases settled
in 2020 represented a return to levels prevalent in prior years,"
said Laarni T. Bulan, a Cornerstone principal and report co-author,
in the news release. "However, one prominent trend continuing from
2019 is an increase in the size of issuer defendant firms."
The size of issuer defendant firms by median total assets involved
in settled cases in 2020 increased by 34% over 2019 and by more
than 125% over the previous nine years, according to the report.
Cornerstone noted that the population of public firms has been
declining, and those companies that remain are larger. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***