/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210326.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, March 26, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 56
Headlines
ABATTIS BIOCEUTICALS: Overcome Legal and Regulatory Allegations
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AIR METHODS: Epler Sues over Excessive Medical Air Transpo Rates
ALLY FINANCIAL: Barry TCPA Court Stayed Pending Facebook Ruling
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Fox Suit Over Stock Market Manipulation
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Ebook Price Fixing
AMERICAN HOME: Johnson Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
APA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
APACHE CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Suit Claims
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
ARROW SENIOR: Underpay Care Partners, Olin-Marquez Suit Claims
ATHENEX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
AUSTRALIA: Eight Teenagers Launch Climate Crisis Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Seeks Dismissal of Hotel Quarantine Class Actions
AVI GLATT: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
AWESOME OFFICE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Johnson Hits Toxins in Baby Food
BELLUS HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 17 Deadline
BLUE DIAMOND: New York Court Narrows Claims in Colpitts Class Suit
BLUEBIRD BIO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BLUEBIRD BIO: The Klein Law Firm Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Elder Abuse Class Action Pending in California
CANADA: 520 Black Federal Public Servants Join Class Action
CAPITAL SENIOR: Faces Suit for Violating Biometric Privacy Law
CARIBBEAN AIRLINES: Extends Lay-Offs Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: 7th Cir. Affirms Two Decisions in Birchmeier Suit
CAVALRY STAFFING: Borelli's Default Judgment Bid in Copper Remanded
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Hopkins Sues Over Misleading Free Delivery Ads
CLARIFAI INC: Court Dismisses Stein BIPA Suit Without Prejudice
CLOVER HEALTH: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 9 Deadline
CLUB 360 LLC: Bazarganfard Sues Over Improper Bank Account Transfer
CONFEDERATION GENERALE: Court Tosses Labor Discrimination Suit
CRICKET WIRELESS: Compelled to Produce Letters in Thomas Suit
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdovinos Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
CYTODYN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
DOMETIC CORP: Court Tosses Administrative Feasibility Requirement
DORM COMPANY: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRAFTKINGS INC: Settles DFS Class Action Lawsuit for $8 Million
EDEN PALACE: Melendez Sues for Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Hise FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
ETHICON SARL: Court Upholds Decision in Pelvic Mesh Class Action
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bid to Dismiss Smith's First Amended Suit Denied
FACEBOOK INC: Carpenter Wellington Discusses BIPA Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Faces EEOC Probe Over Alleged Systemic Racial Bias
FEDEX CORPORATE: Bid to Certify Class in Abdallah TCPA Suit Denied
FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Sugarcane Burning Class Action Suit Pending
GEICO CORP: Must Face Policyholders' Class Action in Illinois
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Fondacaro Says
GERBER PRODUCTS: Kelly FDUTPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
GRIDDY ENERGY: Class Action Over Electricity Charges Pending
GRIDDY ENERGY: Customers Seek to Prevent Tampering of Evidence
GUILD MORTGAGE: Underpays Loan Officer Assistants, Mayoral Alleges
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Lerner Suit Asserts Ebook Monopoly
HILL'S PET NUTRITION: July 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HOMER LAUGHLIN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOWARD CTY, MD: Kim Files Suit v. BOE
ILLINOIS: Attorneys' Fees & Costs Award in Holmes v. IDOC Upheld
INFINITY Q: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 2 Deadline
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 19 Deadline
JONES TILE: Rubin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
KANYE WEST: Sunday Service Wage Class Actions Pending
KEOLIS TRANSIT: Faces Frazier ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
KILWINS QUALITY: Rand Sues Over Mislabeled Confectionary Products
LA GRANJA: Lucius Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Consumers
LARKIN STREET: Jordan Hits Denied Breaks, Pay Stubs, Reimbursements
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LIAT LTD: Former Pilots Join Class Action Over Compassionate Fund
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LOUISIANA: Plaisance's TRO Bid in Suit Over PUA Claims Delay Denied
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Landowners File Lawsuit Over Abandoned Pipes
MARDI GRAS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ringo Claims
MARTIN SHKRELI: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Files Class Action
MDL 2323: Atty. Lien Dispute in NFL Concussion Injury Suit Resolved
MICHIGAN: Fishing License Class Action Against DNR Pending
MID-ATLANTIC ENGINEERING: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MINDGEEK USA: Sued for Child Sex Trafficking
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Class Action on Behalf of Journalists Pending
MONKEY SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Claims
MONTARA WELLHEAD: Indonesian Seaweed Farmers Win Class Action
MOWI ASA: Agrees to Pay $1.3MM to settle US Class Action Suit
MTA BRIDGES: Faces Lezama Suit Over Workplace Discrimination
NATIONAL HEALTH: Plaintiff's Move to Manufacture Venue Tossed
NATIONAL SURETY: Restaurants Sue Over Denied COVID Insurance Claims
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Kuciver Hits Artificial Vanilla in Drink Mix
NIVEK CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Winner Suit Alleges
OHIO: Southern District of Ohio Endorses Dismissal of Grant v. DORC
OHIO: Southern District of Ohio Endorses Dismissal of Lamar v. DORC
ONTRAK INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ONTRAK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Summary Judgment in Moyer FDCPA Suit Affirmed
PERSOLVE LEGAL: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PLUG POWER: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of May 7 Deadline
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martinez Says
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Review of Discovery Order in Mantha Suit Nixed
RANGE RESOURCES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline
RBC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vacation Pay
RENEWABLE ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
ROCHE-BOBOIS USA: Epstein Sues Over Defective Furniture Products
ROOT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
RUANE CUNNIFF: Faces ERISA Lawsuit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Proposes New Medical Monitoring Bill
SAPPI PAPER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Forever Chemicals"
SEA FOX BOAT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SHERMAN OAKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Felix Suit Alleges
SOMERSET MILL: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Suit Over Contamination
SONY INTERACTIVE: Class Action Over DualSense Units Pending
TOTAL AIR: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Martin Suit Claims
TRUBRIDGE: Conner Seeks Health Insurance Sales Agents' Unpaid OT
TURQUOISE HILL: CEO Ulf Quellman Quits Amid Class Action Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Settles Poultry Class Action Lawsuit for $200MM
UBER CANADA: Faces Class Action Claiming $20 Million in Damages
UKRAINIAN INT'L: Lawyer Says Iran's Inclusion in Suit Is a Mistake
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over 777 Engine Failure
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Must Face Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Suit Over Doctor Sexual Abuse
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Anderson Suit Prompts Sexual Assault Bill
UPMC: Class action Lawsuit Targets Firm, Law Firm For Data Breach
VELODYNE LIDAR: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reminds of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: Robbins Geller Discloses Class Action Lawsuit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VI-JON INC: Judge Tosses Hand Sanitizer Mislabeling Class Action
VIVID SEATS: Elster Suit Remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court
VIVINT INC: Fitzhenry Files TCPA Suit in South Carolina
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
WHOLE FOODS: Kekish Hits Artificial Vanilla in Coffee Creamer
WILLOWS INN: Settles Wage Theft Class Action Lawsuit for $600,000
WORKHORSE GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Investors File Securities Class Action Lawsuit
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
XL FLEET: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Class Action
[*] Auto Insurance Companies Urged to Refund Policyholders
[*] JND Legal Named Best Class Action Claims Administrator
[*] Judge Approves Settlement of Nearly $175,000 in FCRA Lawsuit
[*] Pakistan Competition Laws Aim to Benefit Consumers
[*] U.S. & Friendly Gov'ts Must Understand TPLF Security Risks
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,138 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Has $89MM Estimated Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Faces Multiple PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $39.8MM Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Has $13.5MM Exposure Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Still Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ProSight Has $7.9MM A&E Liabilities at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Faces Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $60.7MM Accrued Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has 550 Pending Cases in U.S. and Europe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Has 30,710 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Berkley Has $19MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Faces 400 PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
*********
ABATTIS BIOCEUTICALS: Overcome Legal and Regulatory Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Craig at biospace.com reports that Abattis Bioceuticals Corp.
("Abattis" or the "Company") (OTC:ATTBF) is pleased to announce
significant progress regarding its dealings with the British
Columbia Securities Commission, the Class Action Lawsuit and its
Operations.
The Securities Commission
On November 26, 2018, the British Columbia Securities Commission
(the "BCSC"), issued a temporary order (the "Order") and Notice of
Hearing (the "Notice of Hearing") which made allegations against 11
issuers and 51 other individuals and companies for events that
transpired between the months of February 2018, and August 2018.
Abattis was named in Order and the Notice of Hearing, but the
Company's officers and directors were not. On January 16, 2019, the
BCSC Panel revised the Order and Abattis was removed from it.
After the announcement of the Order and the Notice of Hearing,
further investigations were launched related to their respective
allegations. The Company, its Board of Directors ("Board") and
Management fully cooperated with the BCSC staff and provided
comprehensive responses to each inquiry. The Company also formed a
special committee which was made up of a majority of independent
directors to investigate the allegations made in the Notice of
Hearing. The Company engaged additional legal counsel, separate
from its corporate counsel, to directly address the allegations
made by the BCSC. There have been no further actions taken by the
BCSC of which the Company is aware with respect to the allegations
in the Notice of Hearing since late April of 2019.
The Cease Trade Order
As a result of the increased scrutiny on the Company from the Order
and the Notice of Hearing, its auditor refused to sign off on the
Company's financial statements. This led to the Company being
subjected to a cease trade order (the "CTO") on February 4, 2019 by
the BCSC due to the Company's inability to file its year-end
financial statements within the 120-day deadline required under NI
51-102.
Proposed Class Action Lawsuit
On July 11, 2019, two investors (Michael Tietz and Duane Loewen,
together the "Plaintiffs") launched a proposed Class Action Lawsuit
(the "Class Action Lawsuit") which named the Company, its CEO and
former CFO. The Plaintiff's lawyers filed a Notice of Civil Claim
against all of the issuers, some of their management and the
individuals and other entities named in the November 26, 2018 Order
and Notice of Hearing.
The claim in the Class Action Lawsuit relates to the allegations
made in the Order and the Notice of Hearing. As previously stated,
the Company was removed from the Order on January 16, 2019. Some of
the claims made in the Class Action Lawsuit are based on the
secondary market liability provisions of the Securities Act.
However, the Plaintiffs did not apply for leave to commence an
action based on those portions of the Securities Act, as is
specifically required. To date, leave of the Court has not been
granted and there has been no application for certification of the
lawsuit as a class action. However, the Company, its CEO and former
CFO, have responded to all claims made by the Plaintiffs.
Major Changes to get Back on Track
The series of events resulting from the Order, the Notice of
Hearing, the CTO, and the Class Action Lawsuit put the Company in a
difficult position. Because the Company was not able to file its
financial statements, the subsequent CTO made it impossible for the
Company to raise capital to maintain its operations. In the months
that followed the CTO, the Company hired a new CFO and made changes
to most of its Board in an effort to resolve the problems and put
the Company back on track.
In addition to the Board and Management changes, the Company
imposed several measures aimed at overcoming the allegations and
getting the Company's shares trading again on the Canadian Stock
Exchange (the "CSE"). One of these measures included the request
for the resignation of its previous auditor, Dale Matheson
Carr-Hilton Labonte LLP ("DMCL"). After evaluating several new
auditors, the Company engaged the services of NVS Professional
Corporation ("NVS") in June of 2019. The Company then underwent a
second very comprehensive audit that included re-valuations of all
its material acquisitions. The valuations were not only required
for the acquisitions that transpired during the fiscal year being
audited, but also for all the transactions that took place
subsequent to year end.
Through tireless commitment from the Company's CEO, new CFO,
directors, consultants, lawyers and accountants, and of course, the
exhaustive work performed by its new auditor NVS, on August 8,
2019, the Company filed its annual financial statements ("FS") and
related management discussion and analysis ("MD&A") for year ended
September 30, 2018.
Application to Revoke the CTO to Resume Trading on the CSE
By August of 2019, the Company had paid all of its regulatory fees
(including penalties for late filing) and was completely up to date
with respect to its required regulatory filings. On August 26,
2019, the Company filed an application for the revocation of the
CTO with the BCSC to have its shares resume trading on the CSE. The
Company was hopeful its shares would resume trading by Q4 of 2019.
However, as part of the revocation process, the BCSC opted to
perform its own comprehensive review of not only the Company's 2018
FS and MD&A, but also the 2019 FS and MD&A, which eliminated any
possibility for the shares to resume trading in 2019.
This review went on for over a year and exhausted all the remaining
resources of the Company. Despite not having the resources, the
Company's Board and Management remained committed to this process
until it was resolved.
Over two years later and finally some Vindication
From the Securities Commission
After an extremely long and exhaustive examination process, Abattis
is pleased to announce that on February 3, 2021, the BCSC finally
completed its review of the Company's FY2018 FS and MD&A, and its
FY2019 FS and MD&A. The Company can now proceed with filing the
rest of its FS and continue with the process of applying to have
the CTO revoked so that its shares can trade again.
From the Class Action Lawsuit
The Company and Robert Abenante delivered responsive materials to
the Plaintiffs' application for leave on August 31, 2020. As a
result of those materials, the Company is pleased to report that
the Plaintiffs have signed a discontinuance agreement to
discontinue the Class Action Lawsuit against the Company and Mr.
Abenante, removing them from the Class Action Lawsuit proceedings,
without any payment by the Company or Mr. Abenante.
The discontinuance agreement with the Plaintiffs of the Class
Action Lawsuit includes a covenant that the Plaintiffs cannot sue
Abattis or Mr. Abenante for some of the claims raised in the Class
Action lawsuit. That covenant applies to Abattis, Mr. Abenante, and
their related corporations and entities, and their officers,
directors, employees, insurers, and agents, and their respective
heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns in the
future.
The discontinuance agreement does not apply to any other defendants
in the Class Action Lawsuit. The Company understands that the Class
Action Lawsuit has also been discontinued against its former CFO
and several other defendants.
Message from the CEO
"This has certainly been a challenging couple of years for our
Company, its Directors and Officers, its shareholders and all of
its stakeholders. The pressure from the regulatory inquiries was
compounded by the subsequent CTO and Class Action Lawsuit. The time
and resources required to defend these allegations and respond to
the ongoing inquiries almost put an end to this Company. Throughout
these difficulties, the Board and Management stayed resilient and
dedicated to proving that the allegations were unfounded. The
progress with the BCSC, the discontinuance of the Class Action
Lawsuit, the clean audits of our financial statements and the third
party-valuations of our acquisitions are all proof of that.
I am eternally grateful to our Board of Directors, all the members
of the Abattis team and all the service providers who worked
tirelessly towards overcoming these major regulatory and legal
hurdles. I would also like to personally thank our many
shareholders who have stood by me and our Company during this very
difficult time and expressed their support towards the turn around
of this Company. We could not have achieved these milestones
without the overwhelming support of our major shareholders.
I made a promise to the Company, its shareholders and its
stakeholders that I would not leave this Company until I had
completed the BCSC review, received a clean bill of health of the
financial statements and proven that the Company and I should not
have been named in the Class Action Lawsuit. Now that these
significant milestones have been achieved, I can turn over the
reins to a new leader that can take this Company back to the
heights it once enjoyed. Therefore, I am tendering my resignation
as President, CEO and Director of Abattis, effective immediately. A
very strong foundation has been built in this Company and there are
many very patient and supportive shareholders who are anxious to
see this Company succeed once again. Our very capable CFO, who was
instrumental in all financial matters during these past two years,
will be the acting CEO until a permanent replacement is found."
Message from the Board of Directors
"We would like to thank Rob Abenante for his dedication, leadership
and resolve throughout his tenure as CEO of this Company. It has
been a great pleasure working with such a resilient and dedicated
individual who refused to give up under the immense pressure. While
these past few years have taken a toll on Mr. Abenante, his
relentless determination and credibility remains intact. We hope
that the vindication to date serves to further confirm the
credibility that he has worked very hard to earn over his
accomplished career. We wish him the very best of luck in all of
his future endeavors and are appreciative of all his contributions
to Abattis." [GN]
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. ("AgEagle" or the
"Company") (NYSE: UAVS) 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-01991, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired publicly traded
AgEagle securities between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 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 AgEagle securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 27, 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.
AgEagle purports to be a commercial drone company. According to
AgEagle's website, the Company is engaged in the design,
engineering, and manufacturing of commercial drones, as well as in
providing drone services and solutions to the agriculture
industry.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) 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.
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." The article reported that AgEagle was not partnering with
Amazon.
On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report revealing
that AgEagle "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, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
AIR METHODS: Epler Sues over Excessive Medical Air Transpo Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS EPLER, ROBERT ARMER, RONALD CARTER, ROBERT CERONE, FRANCINE
FREEBORN, and NAVIN KADAMBI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION
and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:21-cv-00461 (M.D. Fla., Mar. 11, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants' practice of charging patients exorbitant and
outrageously excessive sums for emergency medical air
transportation rates, where no express or implied-in-fact contract
exists between the Defendants and the patient for such
transportation.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Class were
charged by the Defendants for the transportation of patients by
air ambulance following a healthcare provider's determination,
under the Emergency Medical Transportation and Labor Act
("EMTALA"), that the patient suffered from an "emergency medical
condition" requiring immediate air transportation to an accepting
medical facility capable of providing appropriate care. The
Defendants only provide emergency air transportation if requested
by a healthcare provider who certifies that air transport is
medically necessary.
The Plaintiffs and the Class have no legal obligation to pay the
Defendants, and the Defendants have no legal entitlement to receive
the price they charge for services absent an express or
implied-in-fact contract, and one cannot be imposed on them by
state law by virtue of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1976's
("ADA") pre-emption provision, says the suit.
Air Methods Corporation provides ambulance services. The Company
offers emergency medical services by air transport. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Phillips, Esq.
Edmund Normand, Esq.
Amy Judkins, Esq.
NORMAND PLLC
3165 McCrory Pl., Ste. 175
Orlando, FL, 32801
Telephone: (407) 603-6031
E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com
ved@ednormand.com
amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
ean@normandpllc.com
-and-
Edward L. White, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE P.C.
829 East 33 rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
-and-
Richard J. Burke, Esq.
Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
2801 Lakeside Drive, Suite 100
Bannockburn, IL 60025-1211
Telephone: (847) 433-4500
Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
E-mail: richard@qulegal.com
zachary@qulegal.com
-and-
J. Preston Strom, Jr., Esq.
Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
6923 N. Trenholm Rd. Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29206
Telephone: (803) 252-4800
Facsimile: (803) 252-4801
E-mail: petestrom@stromlaw.com
mpacella@stromlaw.com
-and-
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Hwy. E. 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Barry TCPA Court Stayed Pending Facebook Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINE M. BARRY individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-12378 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Paul D. Borman of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, grants the Defendant's motion to stay
proceedings in the case pending a ruling by the United States
Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511.
The case is a putative national class action brought under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.
On Aug. 31, 2020, Plaintiff Barry filed the putative national Class
Action Complaint alleging, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, that Defendant Ally, a prominent banking
institution that provides consumers with various banking services,
including mortgage and car loan financing, violated the TCPA, by
placing calls to cell phone numbers belonging to non-customers of
Defendant, using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System ("ATDS"),
without the consent of the recipient, in attempt to collect a
debt.
Individually, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant called her
cell phone, without her consent, using an ATDS, in an attempt to
reach her brother, who has an account with the Defendant. She
alleges that upon answering the phone calls, she was greeted by a
lengthy pause before being connected to a live representative, who
then requested to speak with Joseph Barry, the Plaintiff's brother.
The Plaintiff informed the caller that she was not her brother and
asked Defendant to cease calling her cell phone. The Defendant
nevertheless continued to call her at least four more times in an
effort to reach her brother.
The Plaintiff alleges that based on the lack of prompt human
response during the phone calls in which she answered, the
Defendant used an ATDS to place calls to her cellular phone
numbers. The Plaintiff claims that the dialing system employed by
the Defendant transfers the call to a live agent once a human voice
is detected, thus resulting in a lengthy pause after the called
party speaks into the phone.
The Plaintiff pleads that upon information and belief, the
Defendant's phone calls were part of its scheme to collect
delinquent car loans from borrowers. Specifically, the Defendant's
scheme is to place phone calls to borrowers' relatives and
acquaintances in an effort to pressure the borrowers to make
payment on their loans to avoid the embarrassment of being
perceived as deadbeats by the borrowers' relatives and
acquaintances.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts one claim for violation of the
TCPA, on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Members of the TCPA Class,
and seeks injunctive and monetary relief.
Prior to filing the Plaintiffs' Complaint in the action, on July 9,
2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Facebook, Inc.
v. Duguid, No. 19-511, on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, to resolve
a Circuit split on the issue of: Whether the definition of ATDS in
the TCPA encompasses any device that can store and automatically
dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not use a random or
sequential number generator.
There is a circuit split regarding what constitutes an ATDS. The
Third, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits take a narrow view of the
definition of ATDS, giving credence to a strict grammatical reading
of the statute and concluding that an ATDS must include random or
sequential number generations. The Second and Ninth Circuits have
applied a broader definition, finding that systems, generally
referred to as predictive dialers, that call from a stored list of
numbers are sufficiently automatic to be considered an ATDS under
the TCPA. On July 29, 2020, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion
agreeing with the Second and Ninth Circuits, holding that the
TCPA's statutory definition of an ATDS includes telephone equipment
that can automatically dial phone numbers stored in a list.
The Supreme Court is poised to resolve this circuit split, hearing
oral arguments in Facebook on Dec. 8, 2020. Unless and until the
Supreme Court rules otherwise, the Court is bound by the Sixth
Circuit's current interpretation of the TCPA.
On Dec. 28, 2020, the Defendant filed a Motion to Stay all
proceedings in the matter pending the Supreme Court's decision in
Facebook. It contends that the Supreme Court's decision in
Facebook is likely to be dispositive of the Plaintiff's claim in
the case, or at a minimum, would substantially streamline the
litigation. The Defendant further argues that a stay would serve
the interests of judicial economy, pose no threat to the public
welfare, and is in the best interests of the parties. Finally, it
cites to grants of stay by a number of courts throughout the
country pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook.
The Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Defendant's
motion on Jan. 25, 2021. She contends that the Defendant has
failed to show that the Supreme Court's decision Facebook will have
an impact on the case because it has not shown that the dialing
system used to place calls to her does not have the capacity to
store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number. She
further argues that a stay would be highly prejudicial to her.
Citing Caspar v. Snyder, 77 F.Supp.3d 616, 644 (E.D. Mich. 2015),
Judge Borman explains that where the stay motion is premised on the
alleged significance of another case's imminent disposition, courts
have considered the potential dispositive effect of the other case,
judicial economy achieved by awaiting adjudication of the other
case, the public welfare, and the relative hardships to the parties
created by withholding judgment.
In Facebook, the Supreme Court is addressing the specific issue of
"whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device
that can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone numbers, even
if the device does not 'use a random or sequential number
generator.'" Judge Borman oopines that if the Supreme Court adopts
the position of the Third, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits (and thus
rejects the Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits position), and
establishes that a prohibited ATDS must use a random or sequential
number generator, it seems unlikely that the Plaintiff's TCPA claim
would survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Therefore, because the impending decision in
Facebook will impact the threshold issue in the sole claim the
case, this factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.
Considering the remaining factors -- judicial economy, risk to the
public welfare, and interests of the parties -- Judge Borman finds
that a stay in the matter benefits all involved. The Supreme Court
in Facebook will clarify the core legal issue in the case -- the
definition of ATDS -- and the District Court has an interest in
avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources to set a
schedule for discovery and manage any discovery disputes and
motions practice while that central issue is being decided.
The stay sought in the motion is both definite and limited in
duration. The alleged "harm" is purely speculative and unfounded.
The Defendant, on the other hand, has a substantial interest in
avoiding unnecessary discovery and its associated costs in the
purported national class action case that may be subject to
dismissal, or at least streamlined, based on the Supreme Court's
impending decision. In any event, the parties may move to lift the
stay for good cause in the event a ruling by the Supreme Court is
delayed.
For all the reasons he stated, and considering the interests of
justice, competing equities, and likely limited duration of the
stay, Judge Borman exercises his discretion, grants the Defendant's
Motion for Stay, and stays the case pending resolution of Facebook
by the U.S. Supreme Court. The parties will file a joint status
report, within 14 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision
in Facebook, that proposes a schedule for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3cppt34v from Leagle.com.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Fox Suit Over Stock Market Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE FOX and PREENON HUQ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ALPACA
SECURITIES LLC, CASH APP INVESTING LLC, SQUARE INC., DOUGH LLC,
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, E*TRADE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, E*TRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, ETORO USA
SECURITIES, INC., FREETRADE, LTD., INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, M1
FINANCE, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC., ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC,
IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC, TASTYWORKS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., FF TRADE
REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC, TRADING 212 LTD., TRADING 212 UK LTD., WEBULL
FINANCIAL LLC, FUMI HOLDINGS, INC., STASH FINANCIAL, INC., BARCLAYS
BANK PLC, CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC,
MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC, APEX
CLEARING CORPORATION, and THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00689 (D. Minn., Mar. 11,
2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that on January 27, 2021,
after the close of the stock market and before the open of the the
next trading day, the Fund Defendants coordinated and planned
increased short volumes in anticipation of short calls on January
28, 2021.
Allegedly, the Brokerage Defendants, that operate through Websites
and mobile applications, disabled all buy features on their
platforms and thereby left the Retail Investors with no choice but
to sell or hold their rapidly dwindling stocks. The Brokerage
Defendants did so to ensure that the stock prices for the Relevant
Securities would go down in furtherance of the conspiracy. Other
Brokerage Defendants displayed loading graphics on the landing
pages for these Relevant Securities to prevent users from
purchasing any more Relevant Securities. Plaintiffs and Class
members, faced with an imminent decrease in the price of their
positions in the Relevant Securities due to the inability of Retail
Investors to purchase shares, were induced to sell their shares in
the Relevant Securities at a lower price than they otherwise would
have. Additionally, Class members that would have purchased more
stock in the Relevant Securities given the upward trend in price
could not do so, the suit says.
By doing so, the Defendants and their co-conspirators forced Retail
Investors to choose between selling the Relevant Securities at a
lower price or holding their rapidly declining positions in the
Relevant Securities. The Defendants did so to drive the price of
the Relevant Securities down. The Defendants and their
co-conspirators conspired to prevent the Retail investors from
buying further stock in order to mitigate the Fund Defendants'
exposure in their short positions. By forcing the Retail Investors
to sell their Relevant Securities at lower prices than they
otherwise would have, the Defendants artificially reduced the value
of the Relevant Securities that Retail Investors either sold or
held on to, added the suit.
Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The
Company offers automotive financial services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Kaitlyn L. Dennis, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
kdennis@gustafsongluek.com
-and-
Scott D. Hirsch, Esq.
SCOTT HIRSCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
6810 N. State Road 7
Coconut Creek, FL 33073
Telephone: (561) 569-7062
E-mail: Scott@scotthirschlawgroup.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Ebook Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Locus reports that the law firm of Hagens Berman is suing Amazon
and the Big Five publishers in a class-action lawsuit, alleging
that the publishers conspired with the online retailer to illegally
fix ebook prices. Their initial complaint was filed in the Southern
District of New York on January 14, 2021, and only named Amazon as
a defendant, with Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin
Random House, and Simon & Schuster listed as co-conspirators. The
firm amended the complaint on February 4, 2021, including those
publishers as defendants as well. The filing claims that "Amazon
and the Big Five agreed to price restraints," forcing readers to
"overpay" for ebooks, with the most-favored-nation clauses in
Amazon's contracts creating a "contractual stranglehold" that makes
it impossible for other retailers to compete. The plaintiffs want
consumers to be reimbursed, plus damages, and an injunction to
stop Amazon from "enforcing anti-competitive price restraints."
Hagens Berman was the firm that first sued Apple and the (then) Big
Six publishers way back in 2011, an effort that snowballed into
multiple suits from state attorneys general and the US Department
of Justice, leading the publishers to settle and provide over
$150 million in consumer credits. Apple went all the way to trial
and was forced to repay $400 million to ebook buyers. This new
lawsuit covers some contracts that were negotiated with DoJ
oversight in the wake of that first antitrust trial. [GN]
AMERICAN HOME: Johnson Suit Removed to D. New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mildred Johnson, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. American Home Shield Corporation,
Frontdoor, Inc., Leticia Frazier, Case No. D-202-CV-2021-01144 was
removed from the Second Judicial District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico on March 19, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00242-CG-JHR to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
American Home Shield Corporation -- https://www.ahs.com/ -- is an
American home warranty company based in Memphis, Tennessee. It
administers home service contracts on major home systems and
appliances.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jerrald J Roehl, Esq.
THE ROEHL LAW FIRM, P.C.
300 Central Avenue SW, Suite 2500E
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Phone: (505) 242-6900
Fax: (505) 242-0530
Email: jerry@roehl.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dominic A Martinez, Esq.
Tim L Fields, Esq.
MODRALL SPERLING ROEHL HARRIS & SISK PA
P.O. Box 2168
Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168
Phone: (505) 848-1800
Fax: (505) 449-2088
Email: dominic.martinez@modrall.com
tfields@modrall.com
APA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of APA Corporation f/k/a Apache
Corporation (NASDAQ: APA) between September 7, 2016 and March 13,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important April 26,
2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Apache 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 Apache class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2040.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 26, 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) Apache intentionally used
unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of
available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) Apache did not have the
proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill
and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the
amounts purported; (3) these misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Apache class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2040.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:
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]
APACHE CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Apache Corporation ("Apache"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APA) and reminds investors of the April
26, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Apache stock
or options between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/APA.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the
amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2)
Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely
and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if
they existed in the amounts purported; (3) these misleading
statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the
Company's operations in the Permian Basin; and (4) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Specifically, on April 23, 2019, before financial markets opened,
Apache announced that it had begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of
natural gas production at Alpine High. In response to this news,
Apache's stock price fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 11% over the
next four trading days, from a close of $37.09 per share on April
22, 2019, to close at $33.06 per share on April 26, 2019.
Then, on October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of
Worldwide Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the
Company. In response to this announcement, Apache's stock price
dropped $1.16, or approximately 5%, from a close of $23.23 per
share on October 24, 2019, to close at $22.07 per share on October
25, 2019. Apache's stock traded as low as $20.57 per share on
October 25, 2019, an intra-day drop of approximately 11.5%,
prompting Bloomberg to issue a story titled "Apache Executive's
Departure Sparks Worst Rout Since 2016."
A few months later, on February 26, 2020, after the close of the
markets, Apache announced that it was completely de-valuing Alpine
High after taking a $3 billion write down on the project. Two weeks
later, on March 12, 2020, Apache announced that it had slashed its
quarterly dividend by 90% (from $0.25 per share to just $0.025 per
share) and was significantly reducing planned capital expenditures
for the rest of 2020. On this news, the price of Apache common
stock fell $0.49 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of
$8.25 per share on March 11, 2020, to close at $7.76 per share on
March 12, 2020.
A few days later, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an
article pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged
amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among
large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and
that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and its
"financial health isn't great." The article observed that low gas
prices had "forced Apache to shift capital away from the wet-gas
rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's
production growth." The article noted that "Apache also reduced
Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion." In response to this news and
other investment research downgrades, Apache's stock price fell
$3.61 per share, or approximately 45%, over two trading days, from
a close of $8.07 per share on Friday, March 13, 2020, to close at
$4.46 per share on March 17, 2020.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Apache's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Aquestive
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:AQST) for
violations of Sec 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 2021.
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. Aquestive included data in its New Drug
Application ("NDA") submission for Libervant Buccal Film for the
management of seizure clusters ("Libervant") that showed a
suboptimal drug exposure level for certain weight groups. This
inappropriate data lowered the likelihood of the NDA achieving
approval. 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 Aquestive, 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. [GN]
ARROW SENIOR: Underpay Care Partners, Olin-Marquez Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENDALL OLIN-MARQUEZ, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARROW SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00996-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March
10, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged failure to pay its
employees overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt Care Partner from approximately April 2020 to January
2021 at the Defendant's Carriage Court Senior Living Facility
located at 3570 Heritage Club Dr., Hilliard, Ohio 43026.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were not fully and properly paid for all their
lawfully earned overtime wages despite working more than 40 hours
in one or more workweeks throughout their employment with the
Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant deducted a 30-minute meal
break from their timesheets even though they were unable to take an
uninterrupted 30-minute meal break. In addition, the Defendant did
not include non-discretionary retention bonuses to its employees'
regular rate, thereby failing to accurately compute their overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to keep accurate records of the hours worked by
its employees.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated employees seeking to
recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
litigation costs, disbursements, reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Arrow Senior Living Management, LLC operates and manages 28 senior
living communities across the Midwest. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126
Columbus, OH 43220
Tel: (614) 949-1181
Fax: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
ATHENEX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Athenex, Inc. ("Athenex" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ATNX) 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 August 7,
2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 3,
2021.
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. Athenex announced on March 1, 2021, that
the FDA had issued a complete response letter ("CRL") for the
company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for oral paclitaxel plus
encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. The FDA's
CRL cited patient safety risks and uncertainty related to primary
endpoint results for the objective response rate ("ORR") which may
have introduced bias in the blinded clinical review. The FDA
recommended the Company "conduct a new adequate and well-conducted
clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast
cancer representative of the population in the U.S." The FDA also
indicated that the toxicity would require a risk mitigation
strategy for the treatment to be approved. Based on this news,
shares of Athenex fell by 55% in one day.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
https://schallfirm.com/ [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Eight Teenagers Launch Climate Crisis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Fairhurst, writing for The Islander, reports that eight
teenagers from four Australian states have launched a landmark
class action against Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley saying
she has a "duty of care" to protect future generations from climate
harm.
The class action has been heard in the Melbourne Federal Court with
86-year-old Brigidine nun Sister Brigid Arthur supporting the
students as their "litigation guardian".
The case is being managed by Equity Generation Lawyers (EGL) under
the framework of public interest litigation. The firm specialises
in climate change law.
The class action, Anjali Sharma & others v Minister for
Environment, was filed on September 8, 2020. It claims the
government would be in breach of its duty of care to protect young
people from future climate impacts if it used its environment laws
to approve more coal mining.
The action is in response to a proposal to expand the Vickery
open-cut coal mine, owned by Whitehaven Coal Limited, increasing
its annual production by 25 per cent.
At a hearing in November 2019, Minister Ley agreed not to make a
decision on the Vickery project until after the case was heard.
The trial started on March 2 in Melbourne's Federal Court of
Australia and ran for five days. A judgement is expected to be
handed down in coming weeks.
Led by renowned senior commercial barrister Noel Hutley SC, the
class action is an Australian first. Since it was filed, over 1500
young people have asked to join the class action.
"A safe climate and an increase in fossil fuel production are
incompatible. Given the impacts we've already experienced, and what
the future holds if we don't act now, approving new coal mines will
simply further harm young Australians," said 16-year-old Anj Sharma
from Melbourne.
"We are arguing that the Minister of the Environment has a duty to
protect us all. This case aims to make sure that duty is
fulfilled."
The students are all active in the Schools Strike 4 Climate
campaign.
EGL said if the court agrees the minister's duty of care to protect
young people from the harms of burning coal prevents her from
approving the Vickery extension project, it could set a legal
precedent preventing the government from approving new fossil fuel
projects.
Similar class actions have been tested internationally to hold
governments to account on climate policy.
On February 4, the French state was convicted of failing to address
the climate crisis and not keeping its promises to tackle
greenhouse gas emissions -- a historic ruling that held that
compensation for "ecological damage" was admissible, and that
declared the state "should be held liable for part of this damage
if it had failed to meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions".
The ruling will be used to push the French state to act against the
climate crisis.
"Around the world, people are taking legal action to hold their
governments to account for inaction in the face of climate change,"
EGL principal David Barnden said.
"With their future at stake, it stands to reason young people in
Australia are taking the fight to those in power."
On March 9, during a visit to Port Macquarie, the minister refused
to comment on the class action while the matter remained before the
court. [GN]
AUSTRALIA: Seeks Dismissal of Hotel Quarantine Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
David Estcourt, writing for The Age, reports that the government
will seek to have two major COVID-19 class actions that could cost
it billions of dollars thrown out by the Supreme Court.
The actions, brought on behalf of businesses and workers, claim the
government's mishandling of Victoria's hotel quarantine program led
to the imposition of restrictions that devastated businesses and
led to widespread job losses.
Lawyers acting for the government confirmed on March 8 they intend
to file two summary dismissal applications in the coming months
asking Supreme Court judge John Dixon to strike out the cases.
Both cases threaten to drag former health minister Jenny Mikakos
and Jobs Minister Martin Pakula into civil claims expected to
attract thousands of litigants.
The Victorian government has enlisted international law firm
Herbert Smith Freehills to fight the claims. The dismissal
application is currently listed to be heard on May 31.
The lead plaintiff in the worker class action is 21-year-old Jordan
Roberts, who was retrenched from a Tullamarine warehouse on August
14 - less than a fortnight after stage four restrictions were
imposed on metropolitan Melbourne.
Mr Roberts told The Age he was devastated by losing his job and was
struggling to pay the bills after taking out a loan for a new car.
Carbone Lawyers, representing Mr Roberts, claims his retrenchment
can be traced to the introduction of stage three and four
restrictions, which they allege were the result of mistakes made by
Ms Mikakos, Mr Pakula and their department secretaries during hotel
quarantine.
The lead plaintiff in the business class action is owner of Keilor
Park restaurant 5 Districts NY Anthony Ferrara, who said in court
documents that his financial situation was not his fault and the
lawsuits "are calling to account those who put us in this dire
position".
The Supreme Court has the power to dismiss cases it deems
"scandalous, frivolous or vexatious," or which are an abuse of the
process of the court. Neither plaintiffs have been provided with
the application yet.
Genomic testing has shown that almost all the cases of COVID-19
during Victoria's second wave of transmission - which at its peak
was generating more than 700 cases a day - could be traced back to
a handful of infections among security guards at two quarantine
hotels in Melbourne.
The litigation got off to a bumpy start when barrister Adam
Hochroth, who represents businesses, said they had contacted
government lawyers to begin discussions, but didn't hear back
before they came to court.
Mr Hochroth told the court last August that it was unsatisfactory
that the Andrews government had briefed lawyers to appear in the
case just a few days before a hearing.
Government barrister Liam Brown had previously told the court that
several factors, including findings from the Coate inquiry into
hotel quarantine, the uncertain future of other class actions and
ongoing challenges of the pandemic meant delaying the litigation
was appropriate.
Lawyers for the Andrews government and Quinn Emanuel partner Damian
Scattini, who is representing the businesses, said they could not
comment on the matter given it was before the court. Managing
partner at Carbone Lawyers Tony Carbone said the firm would
"vigorously fight this challenge".
Comment has been sought from the state government. [GN]
AVI GLATT: Flores Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Flores, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Avi Glatt Kosher 2 Corp., Lavi Glatt, Inc.
and Avi Jajati, Khalil Jajati, Mordie Jajati and Murad Jajati,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00936 (E.D. N.Y., February 19, 2021)
seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law, NY Wage Theft
Prevention Act and the "spread-of-hours" and overtime wage orders
of the New York Commission of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a Kosher supermarket located in
Brooklyn under the name of "Avi Glatt Supermarket" where Flores
worked as a supermarket clerk. She usually works in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over
40 per week. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked and failed to pay Flores the
required "spread-of-hours" pay for any day in which he had to work
over 10 hours a day, says the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
Aygul Charles, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.FightForUrRights.com
AWESOME OFFICE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Awesome Office, Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Awesome Office, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02437 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Awesome Office, Inc. doing business as SnackNation --
http://www.snacknation.com/-- is located in Los Angeles, CA,
United States and is part of the Food Wholesalers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Johnson Hits Toxins in Baby Food
-----------------------------------------------------
Jenna Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Campbell Soup
Company (Plum Organics), Gerber Products Company, Hain Celestial
Group (Earth’s Best Organics, Nurture, Inc. (d/b/a HappyFamily
Organics), North Castle Partners (d/b/a Sprout Foods, Inc.),
Walmart, Inc. (Parent's Choice), Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02096
(D. Kan., February 16, 2021), seeks injunctive relief resulting
from negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment,
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability
and for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants package, label, market, advertise, formulate,
manufacture and distribute infant food throughout the United
States.
This action derives its claim from a recent report by the U.S.
House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform revealing that certain
brands of commercial baby food (including Gerber products made with
ingredients such as rice flour, sweet potatoes, certain juices,
certain juice concentrates, and carrots, among other ingredients)
are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy
metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury saying that
exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ and
endangers neurological development and long-term brain function,
among numerous other deleterious alarming conditions and problems.
Plaintiff seeks full disclosure of all such substances and
ingredients in Defendants' marketing, advertising and labeling, as
well as requiring testing of all ingredients and final products for
such substances. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Isaac Diel, Esq.
Ryan C. Hudson, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
5301 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Tel: (913) 901-0505
Fax: (913) 901-0419
Email: rsharp@midwest-law.com
idiel@midwest-law.com
rhudson@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
BELLUS HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of BELLUS Health Inc. ("BELLUS " or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BLU) from September 5, 2019, through July 5, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased BELLUS securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Bellus Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors that BLU-5937 had a much higher
risk of failing to demonstrate efficacy for chronic cough.
Accordingly, despite Merck's successful Phase 2 study, BLU-5937 had
a high risk of failing its Phase 2 study.
Before markets opened on July 6, 2020, Defendants revealed the
truth about BLU-5937's efficacy. They announced that the drug had
failed a Phase 2 study of chronic cough patients for whom other
treatments had not worked. Specifically, BLU-5937 was not
significantly better than a placebo at reducing the frequency at
which patients coughed. The Phase 2 trial showed a "clinically
meaningful and highly statistically significant effect only on a
subset of patients who had high cough counts (around 32 per day),
so the Company was planning a Phase 2b trial focused on those
patients.
On this news, indicating that BELLUS had fallen even further behind
Merck in developing an FDA-approved treatment for refractory
chronic cough, the Company's stock price plummeted over 75% to
close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020 on heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased BELLUS securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bellushealthinc-blu-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-380/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
BLUE DIAMOND: New York Court Narrows Claims in Colpitts Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW COLPITTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS,
Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 2487 (JPC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John P.
Cronan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
Plaintiff Colpitts brings the putative class action against the
Defendant, in connection with the latter's sale of a specific
variety of almonds featuring a smoky taste. The Defendant
distributes and manufactures smoke-flavored almonds, i.e., the
Product. The Product is sold in various sizes, and its packaging
features the label "Smokehouse(R)," among other words, as well as
red and red-orange coloring, a color scheme that, according to the
Plaintiff, is suggestive of fire.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Product's use of the word
"Smokehouse(R)" and a color scheme evocative of fire on its
packaging misleads consumers into thinking that the almonds were
prepared by a natural smoking process, when in fact the Product
retains its taste from added flavors that imitate a smoky flavor.
The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 22, 2020, asserting
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").
The Complaint pleads claims under Sections 349 and 350 of the New
York General Business Law ("N.Y. G.B.L."), as well as common law
claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust
enrichment.
The Plaintiff pleads that the class will consist of all purchasers
of the Product in New York and other states during the applicable
statute of limitations period.
On Sept. 11, 2020, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint.
The Plaintiff filed his brief opposing dismissal on Oct. 2, 2020,
and the Defendant filed its reply brief on Oct. 16, 2020. On Sept.
29, 2020, the case was reassigned to Judge Cronan who held oral
argument on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Feb. 18, 2021.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint on numerous grounds.
First, it argues that the Plaintiff has not pleaded an
injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing under Article III
of the United States Constitution for any of his claims. Second,
the Defendant seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims under N.Y.
G.B.L. Sections 349 and 350, arguing that the Plaintiff fails to
adequately plead a purchase, that he improperly seeks to privately
enforce regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq., and that no
reasonable consumer would interpret the Product's "Smokehouse(R)"
description and package coloring as meaning that the almonds derive
their taste from having been smoked over a fire. Lastly, it argues
that the Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead his claims of
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of express and implied
warranties, and unjust enrichment under common law.
Judge Cronan concludes that the Plaintiff has established Article
III standing to seek damages. He holds that the Plaintiff's N.Y.
G.B.L. Sections 349 and 350 claims survive dismissal because the
Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded viable grounds for relief under
those Sections, including by plausibly alleging that reasonable
consumers could be misled by the Product's labeling.
The Judge, however, dismisses the Plaintiff's common law claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. He
finds that (i) the Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would
allow for a circumstantial finding of fraudulent intent, such as by
showing an awareness of the Product's deceptive nature; (ii) the
Complaint also does not allege a specific motive for the fraud;
(iii) the Complaint does not allege the Defendant's awareness of
the deceiving nature of its representations; (iv) the Plaintiff's
failure to satisfy the pre-suit notice requirement is fatal to his
breach of express warranty claim; (v) the Plaintiff's breach of
express warranty claim, his breach of implied warranty claim also
fails for lack of pre-suit notice; and (vi) the Plaintiff's unjust
enrichment claim merely duplicates his other claims.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Cronan granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. He denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss as to the Plaintiff's claims for
damages under N.Y. G.B.L. Sections 349 and 350. He granted the
motion as to the Plaintiff's claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breaches of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment. Because the Judge finds that any amendment of
these claims would be futile, they are dismissed with prejudice.
The Judge further dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claim
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and his request for injunctive
relief, based on his counsel's representation at oral argument that
the Plaintiff is no longer pursuing these avenues for relief
because they would lack merit in the case.
The Court will schedule an Initial Pretrial Conference by separate
order.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion
pending on Docket Number 10.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/cfyjskrw from Leagle.com.
BLUEBIRD BIO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline for investors to file a
lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company")
(BLUE) from May 11, 2020 through November 4, 2020(the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased bluebird securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit BLUE Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) data supporting bluebird's BLA
submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate
drug product comparability; (ii) Defendants downplayed the
foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic
on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD,
particularly with respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of
all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not
submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would
no longer apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a
treatment for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. Instead,
citing "feedback" from the FDA requiring the Company to provide
additional data "to demonstrate drug product comparability" for
LentiGlobin for SCD, "alongside COVID-19 related shifts and
contract manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts," bluebird
adjusted its submission timing to late 2022.
On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or
16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 13, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased bluebird securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/bluebirdbioinc-blue-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-361/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
BLUEBIRD BIO: The Klein Law Firm Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:
BLUE) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in BLUE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13856&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that bluebird bio, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for
SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability;
(ii) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions
related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission
schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Shareholders have until April 13, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the BLUE lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Elder Abuse Class Action Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
S.E. Williams, writing for Black Voice News, reports that "Elder
abuse does not always come in the form of a physical attack,"
stated former California Attorney Xavier Becerra. "It can result
from utter neglect and lack of proper care, as we allege in the
case of Emily Jones. Assisted living residents are a vulnerable
population all too often victimized by acts of neglect and improper
care."
In this instance, the neglect and abuse resulted in the death of
69-year-old Marjorie S. a resident at Brookdale Senior Living
facility in Riverside.
Registered nurse Emily Jones, an employee of VITAS Healthcare who
was assigned to provide hospice care for the resident, now faces
charges. VITAS is the nation's largest for-profit hospice chain
providing hospice, palliative and end-of-life care.
When the charge against Jones was announced, Becerra stressed that
as a registered nurse, she owed her patients, due care.
"Assisted living residents are a vulnerable population all too
often victimized by acts of neglect and improper care. We must hold
our medical professionals accountable for their actions." He
stressed. "[T]he California Department of Justice is committed to
protecting the health and safety of our residents."
Court documents reveal Jones was the resident's case manager and
allegedly failed to record the discovery of open ulcers in
Marjorie's medical records. She also failed to notify a medical
doctor and the resident's family of her deteriorating condition.
Due to the purported lack of care, Marjorie's condition worsened
and eventually led to her death.
The California Board of Registered Nursing (the Board) opened an
administrative investigation into Jones' actions and concluded as
the resident's case manager, she failed to appropriately assess an
ulcer she discovered on the patient's right heel, a plan of care
was never developed, and the ulcer worsened into a wound that
required emergency surgery to Marjorie's right foot, which had
become septic and gangrenous. Following the surgery, the resident
suffered a continued decline in health and eventually passed away.
In response to the Board's findings the California Department of
Justice also investigated the case through its Division of Medi-Cal
Fraud and Elder Abuse.
Jones was charged with one count of felony elder abuse. Court
documents further indicate because of the abuse, the elderly victim
suffered great bodily harm.
In an unrelated case, in 2017 The Department of Justice (DOJ)
announced the settlement of a False Claims Act lawsuit against
VITAS which accused the company of fraudulently admitting patients
for hospice care and then billing Medicare for the medically
unnecessary services. It is estimated Vitas received up to $1
billion or more each year as a result of the Medicare fraud scheme.
VITAS and its parent company Chemed Corp. reached a $75 million
settlement agreement in October 2017. Then Acting Assistant
Attorney General Chad A. Readler of the Justice Department's Civil
Division said it was the largest False Claims Act settlement ever
recovered from a hospice service provider.
"Medicare's hospice benefit provides critical services to some of
the most vulnerable Medicare patients, and the Department will
continue to ensure that this valuable benefit is used to assist
those who need it, and not as an opportunity to line the pockets of
those who seek to abuse it," he stated.
Brookdale on the other hand also has an unclean record when it
comes to patient care. In 2017,the same year VITAS settled its
False Claims Act lawsuit, elderly care facility residents in
northern California filed a ground-breaking Class Action Lawsuit
against Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. and Brookdale Senior Living
Communities, Inc. claiming financial abuse, widespread violations
of the American with Disabilities Act and understaffing.
The suit, which originated in San Francisco, was soon joined by a
senior resident at the company's Hemet facility. The resident's
family purportedly found him smelly and sitting on a urine soaked
pad. The class action lawsuit is pending,
Meanwhile, in November 2020 a securities lawsuit was filed against
the company by shareholders alleging the company' top executives
and board members allowed multiple violations of Brookdale's
corporate governance policies to go unchecked, causing the company
to intentionally underestimate data used for staffing algorithms.
The company does not comment on pending litigation. [GN]
CANADA: 520 Black Federal Public Servants Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Lapointe, writing for The Hill Times, reports that from claims
of harassment, to allegations of discrimination around promotions,
hundreds of plaintiffs from multiple departments and agencies have
joined the class-action lawsuit following decades of federal
government behaviour that the suit's leading lawyer calls an
'atrocity'.
More than 520 current and former Black federal public servants are
now part of a $900-million class-action lawsuit that is alleging
decades-long government discrimination, lack of advancement
opportunities, and harassment. Three months ago, there were 12
representative plaintiffs. [GN]
CAPITAL SENIOR: Faces Suit for Violating Biometric Privacy Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Bonvissuto, writing for McKnight's Senior Living, reports
that a potential class action suit filed against Capital Senior
Living accuses the Dallas-based operator of violating the same
state biometric privacy law that other operators have been accused
of violating.
The complaint, filed March 2 in 18th Circuit Court in DuPage
County, IL, by former employee Mikkhel Lawrence, asserts that the
Capital's employee fingerprint time clock system violates the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Lawrence worked at the former Spring Meadows Naperville,
Naperville, IL, from September to December 2019. Spring Meadows was
among the properties that real estate investment trust Welltower
transitioned from Capital to StoryPoint Senior Living in 2020.
Employees are required to scan their fingerprints when they clock
in and clock out of work. The suit alleges that the company did not
properly inform employees in writing that it was collecting their
fingerprints, the reason for the collection, nor how long the
information would be stored.
The lawsuit alleges that Capital "compromised the privacy and
security" of employees by sharing Lawrence's and other employees'
fingerprints with the timekeeping vendor without their consent.
The suit seeks to represent a class of more than 50 workers who
scanned their fingerprints into the time clock system from March 1,
2016, to the present without signing a written release.
Capital Senior Living did not respond to McKnight's Senior Living's
requests for comment before the publication deadline.
West Des Moines, IA-based Lifespace Communities, which owns and
operates 15 continuing care retirement communities in eight states,
reached a nearly $1 million deal last month to end a proposed class
action lawsuit over similar violations to the same state privacy
act.
Brookdale Senior Living, Senior Lifestyle Corp., Smith Senior
Living and Sunrise Senior Living all have faced similar class
action lawsuits. All of those senior living operators were accused
of violating the Illinois BIPA in requiring employees to submit to
fingerprint scans to clock in and out of work. [GN]
CARIBBEAN AIRLINES: Extends Lay-Offs Due to COVID-19 Pandemic
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Perez-Sobers at Trinidad Express reports that workers at
majority State-owned Caribbean Airlines Ltd (CAL), who were
temporarily laid off last year as a result of borders being closed
due to the pandemic, have had their furloughs extended for a
further three months.
In an internal memo that was sent by the communications department
to the workers, CAL's chief executive officer Garvin Medera said
the new temporary lay-off period will begin on April 15, according
to Trinidad Express.
In the internal memo, Madera stated that the Covid-19 global crisis
has massively impacted the airline's performance, particularly
compared to its previous upwards trajectory, the report notes.
"Over the past month, we have reduced third party liabilities
somewhat thanks to further Government support and negotiated
significant reductions in expected fleet costs. But our financial
situation remains precarious, with no sign of an imminent
resurgence in business nor the Trinidad and Tobago borders
reopening to international passenger services," the report relays.
The airline executive said based on this, CAL was left with no
other option but to extend the temporary lay-offs for a further
three months, the report discloses. This will run from the existing
lay-off period and apply to the same employee, the report says.
In addition, Madera said the company is inviting employees to apply
for early retirement and, in some cases, part-time employment, the
report relates.
He noted that more details on the financials and the revised
tactical plan for the airline for 2021 and 2022, would be provided
through a virtual town hall meeting during the second quarter, the
report notes.
"I know we share disappointment and frustration that we are still
at the mercy of the global pandemic crisis, but I remain hopeful
the first signs of a global economic recovery will start to appear
as we move through 2021," according to Madera's memorandum, the
report relays.
He indicated that in recent weeks, particularly with the latest US
financial rescue plan being enacted by the new administration of US
President Joe Biden, airlines in North America are starting to see
significant levels of advance bookings and offering a positive
outlook to employees for the first time in 12 months, the report
adds.
This is the third extension of temporary lay-offs since CAL
announced furloughs and salary cuts on October 15, the report
relays. These were initially meant to be short-term measures as the
airline struggled to cope with the financial fallout brought on by
the pandemic and the closure of the borders by the Government in an
attempt to curb the spread of the virus, the report discloses.
Employees who continued to work will work on reduced salaries for
eight months until June 15, 2021, the report relays.
In May last year, Government agreed to guarantee a US$65 million
($442 million) loan to CAL, which was meant to keep the airline
afloat during the pandemic, the report adds.
About Caribbean Airlines
Caribbean Airlines Limited - http://www.caribbean-airlines.com/-
provides passenger airline services in the Caribbean, South
America, and North America. The company also offers freighter
services for perishables, fish and seafood, live animals, human
remains, and dangerous goods. In addition, it operates a duty free
store in Trinidad. Caribbean Airlines Limited was founded in 2006
and is based in Piarco, Trinidad and Tobago.
Caribbean Airlines is among many airlines whose business has been
greatly affected in 2020 by the slowdown of international travel
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The government of Trinidad &
Tobago guaranteed a US$65 million loan for the airline, and that
funding has helped with the airlines' cash flow shortfall since May
2020. In September 2020, the airline related it will be taking
cost-cutting measures to help keep it afloat. The measures, which
was to affect some 1,700 employees, included salary deductions,
no-pay leaves and lay-offs.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: 7th Cir. Affirms Two Decisions in Birchmeier Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Defendants. Appeals of:
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.; Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours,
Inc.; The Berkley Group, Inc.; and Daisy Exum, Case Nos. 20-2672,
20-2676, 20-2698, 20-2699 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on
handling the principal class-wide issues and determining the number
of robocalls class member Exum had received.
The Seventh Circuit's first decision in the large-scale class
action affirmed the district court's handling of the settlement and
award of attorneys' fees. What remained for decision was who had
received how many illegal robocalls, each of which was to support
an award of $500 (subject to any adjustments necessary to ensure
that the total received by the class members, fits within the range
of $56 million to $76 million established by the settlement).
Following the process outlined in the settlement, the district
court resolved some open issues and referred others to a claims
administrator, whose decisions could be reviewed by Wayne Anderson,
serving as a special master. After the Master had made
determinations (which the parties call "awarding calls"), the class
took exception to some parts of the decision and three of the
defendants took exception to others.
The district judge asked the Master to hold additional hearings to
resolve disputes by some class members who said that their claims
had been mishandled. After that had been done, the judge resolved
the remaining issues. The appeals contest two of the judge's
decisions: one handling the principal class-wide issues (2019 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 127472 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2019)), and one determining
that class member Exum had received 15 robocalls rather than the
700 she claimed or the 250 the Master found (2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
129538 (N.D. Ill. July 22, 2020)). The class representatives have
not appealed, but Exum and three of the original Defendants have
done so.
Daisy Exum contends that the Master's decisions are not reviewable,
while the three Defendants assert that appellate review is de novo
-- in other words, that the court of appeals decides on its own,
without deference to the Master or the district judge.
The Seventh Circuit does not agree with either approach. It
explains that a special master, as a judge's delegate, cannot
exercise unreviewable authority even if the parties agree to cut
out the Article III judiciary. And it says that the Defendants are
wrong to label their protests issues of law. They are mixed legal
and factual matters. As the Supreme Court explained in U.S. Bank
N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 960, 966-68 (2018),
the standard of appellate review depends on whether the arguments
are case-specific, which implies deferential appellate review, or
apply to multiple other cases. All of the arguments in all of the
appeals before the Seventh Circuit are case-specific, which means
that its review is deferential.
And the district judge's decisions comfortably survive deferential
appellate review. Take Exum's contention that she received 700
robocalls. She said that her phone bills prove that 700 calls
originated from the defendants or their agents, but she asserted
that she had lost the bills. She did not attempt to obtain new
copies from the phone company. The district judge observed that
there would not have been any reason for the Defendants to call
Exum incessantly (Exum estimated twice a day for a year), when they
did not call anyone else nearly that often. Drawing on the numbers
of calls proved by the class members who retained records, the
district judge estimated that Exum had been called 15 times. That
number is not clearly erroneous.
The Seventh Circuit finds that the Defendants' arguments in support
of their own appeals principally concern the administration of the
settlement's presumption that the class members who do not prove
some different number of calls will be treated as having received
three. The settlement calls this a presumption, but the Defendants
challenged its application to almost 95% of the class members who
availed themselves of it. In their view, only calls registered on
the "class list" should count. The claims administrator, however,
also looked at calls on lists derived from other sources. The
district judge largely endorsed the claims administrator's
approach, observing that the class list had been compiled from
incomplete records.
The Seventh Circuit thinks that the district judge's opinion says
all that need be said about the objections that the Defendants have
raised on appeal. Accordingly, it affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/u42sw28c from Leagle.com.
CAVALRY STAFFING: Borelli's Default Judgment Bid in Copper Remanded
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEREK COPPER, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAVALRY STAFFING,
LLC, et al., Defendants. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.,
Third-Party Plaintiff v. FLEET STAFF, INC. and RONALD E. HEINEMAN,
Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-3676 (FB) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y.),
Judge Frederick Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York recommitted the matter to Magistrate Judge
Mann for further proceedings on Borelli's motion for a default
judgment on that complaint.
Shortly before suit was filed, the main Defendant, Cavalry, sold
all of its assets to Fleet. Despite the sale, Cavalry continued to
defend the suit on its own behalf. At some point, however, Cavalry
and Fleet agreed to a "50/50 split" of any liability to the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs and Cavalry reached a settlement, which the Court
approved in February 2018. Pursuant to the settlement, Cavalry was
to pay $460,000 by April 13, 2018. On that date, its counsel
informed the Plaintiffs' counsel that Cavalry could not make the
required payment. After the Court intervened, Cavalry paid
$230,000, which the parties agreed would first be distributed to
the class members.
While attempting to collect the remaining $230,000, the Plaintiffs'
counsel learned of Fleet's purchase of Cavalry. After first
seeking an order requiring Fleet to turn over its share of the
"split liability," the Plaintiffs' counsel, Borelli, ultimately
agreed to an assignment of Cavalry's claim against Fleet for breach
of contract.
The Court approved the assignment and, without expressing any
opinion as to the merits of the claim, granted Borelli leave to
file a third-party complaint against Fleet and its owner, Robert
Heineman. After both third-party defendants defaulted, the Court
referred Borelli's motion for a default judgment for a report and
recommendation.
Magistrate Judge Mann has issued a report and recommendation
("R&R") recommending that the Court denies the third-party
Plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the third-party
defendants because Cavalry's claim against Fleet for breach of
contract was "an unenforceable contractual indemnification claim in
a wage-and-hour case." Borelli argues that this conclusion was
erroneous, triggering the Court's de novo review.
Judge Block explains that in Herman v. RSR Security Services Ltd.,
172 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit held that "there is
no right of contribution or indemnification for employers found
liable under the FLSA." All agree, however, that Herman dealt with
claims for contribution and indemnification directly under the
FLSA. The question in the case is whether the statute also bars
claims for contractual indemnification. Herman is silent on that
question.
As Magistrate Judge Mann correctly noted, several district courts
in the circuit have extended Herman to claims for contractual
indemnification. That line of cases traces its origins to Gustafson
v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 171 F.Supp.2d 311 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Judge
Block finds Gustafson distinguishable.
The plaintiff in Gustafson was initially a chauffeur working for a
limousine company that contracted with the defendant. The defendant
eventually required the plaintiff and other chauffeurs "to form
their own corporations, which were required to carry workers'
compensation, unemployment compensation and non-owners liability
insurance." The plaintiff complied and formed a corporation; "at
all times [he] was its sole owner, officer and employee." Id. The
defendant then contracted with the plaintiff, with the contract
requiring the plaintiff to indemnify the defendant for any losses
"caused by the performance of any services or the providing of any
materials under this agreement."
The plaintiff sued the defendant under the FLSA, successfully
arguing that he had been misclassified as an independent
contractor. The defendant then attempted to negate that success by
invoking the contractual indemnity provision. The court quite
sensibly rebuffed the attempt: "Allowing indemnification in cases
such as this would permit employers to contract away their
obligations under the FLSA, a result that flouts the purpose of the
statute."
Two facts distinguish the case from Gustafson, Judge Block
explains. First, he says, the indemnity agreement in Gustafson
would have put the liability for its noncompliance with the FLSA on
the plaintiff—the very party invoking the statute's protection.
The agreement between Cavalry and Fleet does no such thing. To the
contrary, as the Plaintiffs' collection efforts attest, the
agreement benefitted the Plaintiffs by making available another
source of funds to satisfy an obligation that Cavalry could not.
Second, the agreement between Cavalry and Fleet does not
incentivize flouting the FLSA. Judge Block questions whether any
typical indemnity agreement does so; after all, employers regularly
seek to manage their risk of liability through bonds and insurance
policies. He hesitates to call these commonplace arrangements
unenforceable in the FLSA context.
In any event, the agreement between Cavalry and Fleet is not a
typical indemnity agreement, in that it was not intended to shift a
future liability. Rather, Cavalry and Fleet were both aware of a
pending lawsuit and mutually agreed to share liability for it as
part of their purchase agreement. Nothing about the agreement
suggests that Cavalry was attempting to avoid its obligations under
the FLSA. Indeed, absent the agreement, Fleet could arguably have
been liable for the entire settlement amount under a theory of
successor liability.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Block sustained Borelli's
objection and, so, declined to adopt the R&R's recommendation that
its third-party complaint be dismissed. The matter is recommitted
to Magistrate Judge Mann for further proceedings on Borelli's
motion for a default judgment on that complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/t7zedcu7 from Leagle.com.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Hopkins Sues Over Misleading Free Delivery Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH HOPKINS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00646-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., March 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for fraud in the
inducement and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
representation to provide free delivery or one dollar delivery on
food deliveries ordered through its app and website. In reality,
the Defendant actually imposes an extra service charge only on food
delivery orders that amounts to approximately 10 percent more than
what is charged for the exact same food purchased by the
Defendant's customers who do not have their orders delivered.
Delivery customers are also subject to another hidden upcharge
since the Defendant misleadingly marks up food prices for delivery
orders by 12 percent to 15 percent. As a result of the Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members
were deceived into making online food purchases they otherwise
would not make or significantly paying more for food purchases had
they known the true state of facts, the suit asserts.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual
restaurants with its principal business offices in Newport Beach,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Michael Campbell, Esq.
CAMPBELL LAW
P.O. Box 24358
Lakeland, FL
Telephone: (863) 227-4315
Facsimile: (863) 213-4581
E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com
- and –
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Craig S. Davis, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Ste. 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
csdavis@locklaw.com
CLARIFAI INC: Court Dismisses Stein BIPA Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORDAN STEIN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLARIFAI, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 20 C 1937 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara I. Ellis of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
grants Clarifai's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction without prejudice.
Clarifai, a technology company incorporated in Delaware and based
in New York, specializes in artificial intelligence. It created a
face database to develop and train algorithms used in its facial
recognition technology. In doing so, Clarifai created thousands of
unique face templates by scanning biometric information contained
in photographs housed in the database and extracting the unique
geometry of each face detected therein. Clarifai also provides
pre-trained visual recognition models, including a demographic
model, that can recognize certain attributes in an image. Since
May 2018, Clarifai may have sold 58 demographic models to two
customers located in Illinois. These sales brought in
approximately seven cents in revenue, as Clarifai bills its
customers at a rate of $1.20 per $1,000 operations.
On July 13, 2019, the New York Times published an article that
revealed that Clarifai built the database from OKCupid profile
pictures. The article further revealed that Clarifai signed an
agreement with a large social media company to use its users'
images for training facial recognition algorithms. According to
OKCupid, Clarifai contacted it in 2014 in hopes of collaborating on
artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology.
Clarifai gained access to OKCupid users' profile photographs from
one of its investors, Corazon, a Chicago-based venture capital
fund, and its principals, Sam Yagan and Max Krohn, who founded
OKCupid. Krohn used his personal email account to provide the
photographs to Clarifai's chief executive officer, Matthew Zeiler.
In 2013, Stein, an Illinois resident, signed up for an account on
OKCupid and uploaded roughly five digital photographs of herself to
create her user profile; to date, Stein still uses the application.
Because Stein's account was active at the time Clarifai obtained
profile photographs to create its database, Clarifai has used
Stein's profile photographs in its database. At no time did
Clarifai inform Stein of the use of her photographs to collect,
capture, receive, store, or use her facial information. Instead,
Stein learned that Clarifai had gained access to her OKCupid
profile photographs from the New York Times profile of Clarifai.
Clarifai asserts it has never developed a business relationship
with OKCupid and has no knowledge of where OKCupid users are
located. Zeiler states that Clarifai operates a globally
accessible website, and while the website is accessible in
Illinois, Clarifai does not target its website to residents in
Illinois. Clarifai is not registered to do business in Illinois,
has no offices or employees in Illinois, has never had property,
employees or operations in Illinois, and does not maintain a place
of business in Illinois. Zeiler indicates that Clarifai does not
target its marketing, sales, or commercial activity towards
Illinois, nor does it specifically develop or train facial
recognition or artificial technology in Illinois.
After learning that Clarifai collected photographs from her OKCupid
profile and used her facial information for profit without her
consent, Plaintiff Stein filed te putative class action against
Clarifai. Stein alleges that Clarifai violated Sections 15(a),
(b), and (c) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq. She also brings a
claim for unjust enrichment.
Clarifai now moves to dismiss Stein's claims against it for four
reasons: first, that the complaint lacks allegations sufficient to
assert personal jurisdiction over it under Rule 12(b)(2); second,
if personal jurisdiction does exist, that BIPA does not have
extraterritorial application; third, that applying BIPA to Clarifai
violates the Dormant Commerce Clause; and finally, that Stein's
unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of the BIPA claims.
Judge Ellis need only address Clarifai's personal jurisdiction
argument, as it is dispositive. Personal jurisdiction comes in two
forms: general and specific. Stein does not contend that the Court
has general jurisdiction over Clarifai so Judge Ellis limits her
analysis accordingly. Specific jurisdiction exists "when the
defendant purposefully directs its activities at the forum state
and the alleged injury arises out of those activities."
The Judge considers whether the conduct underlying the claims was
purposely directed at the forum state, looking at whether Clarifai
engaged in (1) intentional conduct (or 'intentional and allegedly
tortious' conduct); (2) expressly aimed at the forum state; (3)
with the Defendant's knowledge that the effects would be felt--that
is, the Plaintiff would be injured--in the forum state.
Ms. Stein argues that Clarifai has sufficient minimum contacts with
Illinois because it obtained the profile photos from an
Illinois-based company and it has marketed and sold the demographic
model to Illinois customers. Clarifai contends, however, that
while it has sold its product to a small number of Illinois
customers, it merely runs an interactive website that does not
specifically target Illinois residents and has no other relevant
ties to this state. Instead, according to Clarifai, the only
connection to Illinois is the fact that Stein resides in the
state.
Judge Ellis finds that Stein alleges that Clarifai committed a
tortious act in Illinois by illegally obtaining images of her and
other Illinois OKCupid users and subsequently using those
photographs to train its facial recognition software in violation
of BIPA. The only alleged tie to Illinois with respect to
Clarifai's acquisition of the photographs is through Corazon, a
Chicago-based venture capital fund, and its principals, two of
whom, Sam Yagan and Max Krohn, also founded OKCupid. As
jurisdictional discovery revealed, Zeiler, Clarifai's CEO, reached
out to Krohn to inquire whether Clarifai could obtain access to
OKCupid's data, and eventually, Krohn provided this information to
Zeiler from his personal email account.
Ms. Stein has not provided any basis to infer that Krohn took the
action on behalf of Corazon or that Krohn otherwise has a
connection to Illinois. And while Corazon invested in Clarifai,
the Judge holds that this relationship does not subject Clarifai to
jurisdiction in Illinois with respect to the claims at issue;
Clarifai's contacts with Illinois must come from its suit-related
activity in the forum state, not from the activity of a third
party, and so its contractual relationship with Corazon, which does
not appear to have any bearing on the claims at issue, is
irrelevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis in the case.
Therefore, the Judge cannot find that Clarifai specifically
targeted Illinois in connection with its acquisition of OKCupid
Illinois residents' user profiles.
Ms. Stein also argues that Clarifai's sales of its demographic
model to two Illinois customers creates the required minimum
contacts with Illinois. These two customers purchased access to
the model as many as 58 times in the eighteen months before Stein
filed suit, generating approximately seven cents in revenue for
Clarifai. Clarifai maintains that these purchases do not show that
Clarifai targeted its products, including the database, to Illinois
customers and instead only reflects that it operated an interactive
website, which does not suffice to create jurisdiction in this
state. It also represents that it "does not target its marketing,
sales, commercial activity, or deploy its technology towards
Illinois.
Judge Ellis finds that the miniscule number of transactions at
issue, 58 sales to just two Illinois residents that garnered
Clarifai only seven cents in revenue, without additional evidence
to show Clarifai targeted the forum state, cannot suffice to
subject Clarifai to personal jurisdiction in the Court. Because
Stein has not demonstrated that Clarifai directed its suit-related
actions at Illinois so as to subject it to the Court's
jurisdiction, even after engaging in jurisdictional discovery, the
Judge must dismiss her complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
For the reasons she set forth , Judge Ellis grants Clarifai's
motion to dismiss. She dismisses Stein's claims without prejudice
for lack of personal jurisdiction, and terminates the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3wak9umn from Leagle.com.
CLOVER HEALTH: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-clov/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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 KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163[GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-clover-health-investments-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html)
on March 8 disclosed that purchasers of Clover Health Investments,
Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV) (formerly known as Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III) Class A common stock and warrants to purchase
Class A common stock (collectively, the "Securities") between
October 6, 2020 and February 3, 2021 (the "Class Period") have
until April 9, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the
Clover Health class action lawsuit, Yaniv v. Clover Health
Investments, Corp., No. 21-cv-00109 (M.D. Tenn.), which is assigned
to Judge Aleta A. Trauger.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Clover Health Securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Clover Health
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 Clover Health class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Clover Health class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
in any potential future recovery of the Clover Health class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Clover Health class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
February 8, 2021. If you wish to discuss the Clover Health class
action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K.
Blasy of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 631-454-7719 or via
e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint
as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-clover-health-investments-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Clover Health class action lawsuit charges Clover Health and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Clover Health is a health
insurance service company that provides Medicare Advantage health
plans. Clover Health began the process of going public during the
summer of 2020, ultimately merging with Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp III, an already publicly listed special-purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC").
The complaint alleges that Clover Health's statements throughout
the Class Period, including in the registration statement used to
complete the SPAC transaction, omitted facts required to make its
other statements not misleading and failed to comply with Items 303
and 503 of Regulation S-K. Specifically, the registration statement
failed to disclose that Clover Health was subject to an ongoing
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including
its software "Clover Assistant" purportedly designed to serve
"low-income and often overlooked communities," as well as
kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed third-party deals.
With the price of Clover Health Securities trading at
fraud-inflated prices based on their false and misleading
statements, Clover Health's senior officers and directors,
including all but one of the defendants, along with certain other
venture capital financiers, took steps to cash-in, filing an
additional registration statement with the SEC that would register
for resale and permit them to sell hundreds of millions of their
personally held Clover Health Securities at fraud-inflated prices.
Once again, the registration statement filed with the SEC to permit
the insiders and venture capital financiers to cash out their
shares omitted facts required to make its other statements not
misleading and failed to comply with Items 303 and 503 of
Regulation S-K.
On February 4, 2021, stock investment firm Hindenburg Research
disclosed the existence of the ongoing DOJ investigation by
publishing an investigative report entitled "Clover Health: How the
'King of SPACs' Lured Retail Investors Into a Broken Business
Facing an Active, Undisclosed DOJ Investigation." Among other
things, according to Hindenburg, prior to the merger, Clover Health
had received a civil investigative demand letter from the DOJ "and
the corresponding investigation present[ed] a potential existential
risk for a company that derives almost all of its revenue from
Medicare, a government payor." Hindenburg also described a
relationship between Clover Health and its subsidiary Seek
Insurance as "thinly disclosed," noting that it did not mention the
subsidiary on its website yet told seniors that it would provide
them with unbiased information on finding Medicare plans. On this
news, the price of Clover Health Securities fell more than 12%,
damaging investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities 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
Mary K. Blasy, 800-449-4900
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CLUB 360 LLC: Bazarganfard Sues Over Improper Bank Account Transfer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN BAZARGANFARD; and BARAK GOLAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLUB 360 LLC, ABC
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, JEHANGIR MEHER, and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02272 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 14, 2021) alleges violation
of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants debit
the Plaintiff and the Class members' bank accounts on a recurring
basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' accounts.
CLUB 360 LLC is engaged in the business of providing gym facility
in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: dman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
CONFEDERATION GENERALE: Court Tosses Labor Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe Despres, Esq., and Nicolas Etcheparre, Esq., of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report
that class actions were introduced into French law in 2014 via the
so-called Hamon Law, though the scope was limited to consumer law
issues. In November 2016, the law was expanded to include
discriminatory practices in the workplace and with respect to
recruitment. Individuals who claim to have suffered from a similar
damage can collectively mandate a trade union to file a claim in
court in order to obtain an injunction to end the alleged breach
and/or damages. Such a class action must relate to direct or
indirect discrimination based on the same grounds for all
plaintiffs and attributable to the same employer. Prior to filing a
claim in court, the plaintiffs must give notice to the defendant
through their elected trade union. The employer has four months to
answer the notice and take necessary measures to end the presumed
breach, and the plaintiffs can file their class action only after
the four months have passed.
In the first decision on a class action labor discrimination case
in France, issued on December 15, 2020, the Paris Judicial Court
("Tribunal Judiciaire") ruled against the "Confederation Generale
des Travailleurs" (CGT) union, which claimed that all of its union
representatives at a French company had been discriminated against
over the course of their careers. The union had alleged that its
elected members did not experience the type of career advancement
that other employees in similar positions enjoyed.
The court dismissed the union's claims in their entirety on the
grounds that the union could only invoke acts of discrimination
that occurred after 2016, when the law was expanded to allow class
actions for discrimination matters. Since the CGT case was brought
in 2017, admissible facts were considered to relate to a period too
short to enable the court to assess the existence of acts of
discrimination in terms of career advancement or remuneration.
To justify the nonretroactivity of the 2016 law, the court relied
on Article 92, Section II of the 2016 law, according to which class
action on discrimination issues were "applicable only to actions
for which the event giving rise to liability or the breach is
subsequent to the entry into force of this law."
The legislators who crafted the law appear to have intended for it
not to be retroactive, but according to French legal scholars, the
law is unclear on how to apply the nonretroactivity principle. The
law could mean that discrimination that ended prior to the 2016 law
could not be the basis for a class action, but discrimination that
started prior to the 2016 law and was still ongoing could.
The decision is under appeal, but the "Defenseur des Droits," a
French independent administrative authority with a focus on
protecting human rights and fighting discrimination, has intervened
on behalf of the GCT union and has already stated that it would be
necessary to review the terms of the 2016 law if the decision is
upheld.
In addition, the CGT union did not try to prove that every
individual plaintiff had been discriminated against. Rather, it
used a statistical method called the "panel method" to prove that
at least a significant part of the union, which was deemed to be
representative of all the plaintiffs, had been discriminated
against. Such an approach had never been used in a French labor
court before, and discrimination claims usually require proof of
the existence of discrimination for each and every plaintiff.
Should this approach be confirmed by the court of appeal, employers
should strongly consider performing regular equal pay audits that
rely more heavily on statistical tools to establish the absence of
discrimination and prevent future class actions. [GN]
CRICKET WIRELESS: Compelled to Produce Letters in Thomas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERMAINE THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CRICKET
WIRELESS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07270-WHA (AGT) (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California grants in part the Plaintiffs'
renewed request to compel the Defendant to produce its litigation
hold letters and related correspondence.
The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in November 2019,
alleging that Cricket engaged in a fraudulent scheme to market and
sell 4G/LTE devices and service plans to customers nationwide by
falsely advertising its 4G/LTE coverage. The alleged scheme ran
from May 2012 until May 2014, when Cricket was acquired by AT&T,
Inc.
Importantly, it is not Cricket's first (or second) time defending
itself against these putative class allegations. In May 2015,
different plaintiffs brought almost identical allegations against
Cricket in Barraza v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, No. 3:15-cv-02471-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), another putative class action before Judge Alsup.
Barraza was resolved on an individual basis in December 2015,
before any putative class had been certified, when both named
plaintiffs accepted Cricket's offer of judgment for the full value
of their claims and voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice.
At a hearing just before the dismissal, Judge Alsup asked the
parties if there was "any scenario under which the merits of the
case could come back to life," and plaintiffs' counsel said no.
Judge Alsup also asked counsel whether there was "any kind of side
deal that allows you to go off and re-file a similar case in some
other court," and plaintiffs' counsel also said no. At the time of
Barraza's dismissal, the statute of limitations had not run on the
hundreds of thousands of other putative class members' claims
against Cricket.
Then, in September 2016, two of the named Plaintiffs in the instant
case filed suit against Cricket in Missouri federal court based on
the same alleged misconduct during the same time period -- Thomas
v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, No. 16-cv-1065 (W.D. Mo.) ("Thomas I").
Thomas I, which Cricket describes as "a copycat of Barraza," was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice subject to a tolling
agreement that allowed the parties to discuss early resolution.
That tolling agreement expired on Nov. 4, 2019, when the instant
case was filed.
During discovery in the case, the Plaintiffs learned that after
Barraza was resolved in December 2015, Cricket discarded certain
documents and data from the putative class period that they believe
would help substantiate their class allegations. Cricket claims
that it was entitled to stop preserving documents after Barraza and
that in any event, it has been transparent about what documents
were not retained.
The Plaintiffs assert that Cricket has represented that its
document destruction was not performed by automated means and
occurred, in whole or in part, after Barazza was filed. Cricket
does not dispute this.
Based on these concerning revelations about Cricket's post-Barraza
document destruction -- which, in the Plaintiffs' view, constitute
"preliminary evidence of spoliation" -- the Plaintiffs sought
further discovery about Cricket's document retention practices in
an effort to further investigate a potential spoliation claim.
Cricket, while denying that any spoliation occurred, agreed to
produce "documents sufficient to show which databases were sunset
(and when)" and to "say when it stopped retaining the custodial
documents of particular legacy Cricket officers and employees that
plaintiffs have identified." It also agreed to provide a Rule 30
(b)(6) deposition about document retention. But Cricket refused to
produce its litigation hold letters and related correspondence as
requested in the Plaintiffs' RFP No. 57, objecting that those
documents are irrelevant and privileged.
On Nov. 20, 2020, shortly before the Plaintiffs were scheduled to
depose Cricket's Rule 30(b)(6) witness on retention, they moved to
compel production of the requested hold letters. They argued that
any privilege attached to Cricket's letters had been overcome by
their "preliminary showing of spoliation" -- i.e., Cricket's
admissions that it destroyed information from the putative class
period that they claim was relevant and "might have been useful" to
them.
Cricket, in addition to claiming it had no duty to preserve the
missing information, argued that compelling production prior to the
upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was premature. It also argued,
much less persuasively, that the Barraza hold letters are no longer
relevant because there is no way that Cricket could have been under
a continuing duty to preserve documents after Barraza.
Following the hearing, on Dec. 14, 2020, the Court overruled
Cricket's relevance objections and held that the requested hold
letters are relevant to the Plaintiffs' examination of Cricket's
document preservation practices and whether Cricket spoliated
relevant evidence. But as foreshadowed at the hearing, the Court
declined to immediately compel production of the hold letters and
denied the Plaintiffs' motion "without prejudice to renewal, if
warranted, after completion of the upcoming deposition of Cricket's
Rule 30(b)(6) representative on document retention.
The Plaintiffs went on to depose two Cricket representatives on
retention, Paula Phillips (custodial data and litigation holds) and
Gwen Sikora (application data), and have since renewed their motion
to compel. In their pending renewed request, the Plaintiffs argue
that despite the Court's instructions, Cricket's Rule 30(b)(6)
witnesses either did not know, or were counseled not to answer,
basic questions about what kinds and categories of information and
documents were covered by the subject hold letters (category 2
above) and what specific actions Cricket employees were instructed
to take regarding collection and preservation (category 3 above).
They argue that they have now attempted to obtain that information
from Cricket through written discovery, two Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions, and review of Cricket's Court-ordered privilege log --
all without success -- and the only remaining way that they can get
the information is through an order compelling production of
Cricket's hold letters.
In opposing the Plaintiffs' renewed request, Cricket doubles down
on its position that it "had every right to dispose of the disputed
documents and databases" and argues that there is no basis to
compel production of its privileged hold letters because it has
sufficiently answered plaintiffs' questions about document
retention. It further argues that it followed the Court's
deposition instructions set forth in the December 14 order. But
the Plaintiffs cite to numerous places in both depositions where
Cricket's witnesses could not or would not answer questions
specifically seeking information about the "basic details"
surrounding the hold letters that the Court outlined in its prior
order.
Judge Tse disagrees with Cricket that it "honored the line the
Court drew in its December 14 order," and agrees with the
Plaintiffs that at this point, compelling production of Cricket's
hold letters in the case, Barraza, and Bond, is appropriate and the
only way they will get the information they need to further
investigate and possibly prove spoliation. In reaching this
conclusion, the Judge returns to the undisputed fact that Cricket
admittedly destroyed information and documents from the putative
class period after the resolution of Barraza. Those admissions
raise enough questions about Cricket's document retention and
preservation efforts -- questions that Cricket has refused to
answer through written discovery and now two Rule 30(b)(6)
depositions -- to allow the Plaintiffs "to take the 'initial step'
of discovering the content of Cricket's litigation hold notices so
that they can 'investigate and possibly prove spoliation.'"
The Plaintiffs also seek to compel production of Cricket's hold
letters issued in connection with two peripheral patent
infringement cases, Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v.
Leap Wireless, No. 2:13-cv-885 (E.D. Tex.), and Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Cricket Communications, No. 1:13-cv-1669 (D.
Del.), which were not mentioned or discussed in their initial
motion or at the hearing on that motion. Aside from their cursory
claim that both cases "relate to 4G/LTE device sales that existed,"
the Plaintiffs offer no explanation whatsoever as to how or why the
hold letters issued in either case relate to the issues. The
Plaintiffs' request to compel these hold letters is therefore
denied.
For the reasons he discussed, Judge Tse grants the Plaintiffs'
renewed request to compel production of Cricket's litigation hold
letters issued in connection with the case, Barraza, and Bond.
Cricket must produce all portions of those letters that address
litigation holds and/or preservation issues. To the extent any of
the letters contain statements that clearly deviate from these
issues, the Court is amenable to reviewing those statements in
camera to evaluate whether they are protected by the
attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine such that
Cricket may redact them. Cricket is ordered to submit any hold
letters qualifying for in camera review to the Court via email, at
agtsettlement@cand.uscourts.gov, by March 24, 2021. Cricket will
produce all other letters (i.e., those addressing only litigation
hold and/or preservation issues) to the Plaintiffs by March 24,
2021.
The Judge denies the Plaintiffs' request to compel production of
Cricket's hold letters from Leap Wireless and Intellectual
Ventures.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Discovery Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uee4vhpf from Leagle.com.
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Valdovinos Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CECILIA VALDOVINOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC. et
al., KEVIN O'HAIR, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG21085785, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 18, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01924 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged labor violations
including discrimination and harassment based on sex, national
origin, and physical disability; failure to take reasonable steps
to prevent discrimination and harassment; retaliation; and
constructive wrongful termination.
Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. is a commercial real estate services
firm, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Harold R. Jones, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Harold.Jones@jacksonlewis.com
CYTODYN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn" or the "Company") (OTCQB:
CYDY) from March 27, 2020 through March 9, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased CytoDyn securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit CytoDyn Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
On this news, CytoDyn's stock price fell roughly $2.58 per share,
or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021 on
usually high trading volume.
On March 5, 2021, CytoDyn issued a press release providing an
update on its product "Vyrologix (leronlimab-PRO 140), a CCR5
antagonist with the potential for multiple therapeutic
indications." The press release stated, in part, that "the Phase 3
trial of leronlimab for the treatment of severe-to-critical
patients with COVID-19 demonstrated continued safety, substantial
improvement in the survival rate, and faster hospital discharge in
critically ill COVID-19 patients." While the press release touted
purportedly positive results, industry observers and analysts
quickly characterized the Company's press release as misleading.
For example, on March 8, 2021, Seeking Alpha published an article
by Paul Santos entitled "CytoDyn: Parsing Failure." The article
asserted that CytoDyn's "leronlimab Phase 3 trial on COVID-19
severe-to-critical patients failed . . . to meet both its primary
endpoint and all secondary endpoints with any statistical
significance" and described the Company as having effectively
"buried" the results in its press release. Santos noted that "[a]
normal biotech company would have stated this clearly, both in its
PR titles and in their text bodies. Cytodyn, however, did something
else."
On this news, CytoDyn's stock price fell $1.70 per share, or
41.98%, over the next two trading sessions, closing at $2.35 per
share on March 9, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 17, 2021, 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.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased CytoDyn securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cytodyninc-cydy-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-381/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]
CYTODYN INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn" or the "Company")
(OTCQB: CYDY) in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of CytoDyn between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, and failed to disclose that: (1) while the
Company's stock price was sufficiently pumped with the COVID-19
cure hype, long-term shareholders, including CEO Nader Z.
Pourhassan and CFO Michael Mulholland, dumped millions of shares;
(2) the Company engaged in a wrongful scheme with its lender, Iliad
Research and Trading L.P. ("Iliad"), and its principal John Fife
("Fife"), whereby Iliad and other Fife entities operated as an
unregistered securities dealer for the Company; and (3) Iliad
obtained a convertible promissory note from the Company and
converted the note into newly issued shares of the Company and sold
those shares into the public market at a profit, in violation of
the dealer registration requirements of the federal securities
laws.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of CytoDyn
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May
17, 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. [GN]
CYTODYN INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
CytoDyn, Inc. (CYDY)
Class Period: 3/27/2020 - 3/9/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 17, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-cydy/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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 KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
DOMETIC CORP: Court Tosses Administrative Feasibility Requirement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John H. Beisner, Geoffrey M. Wyatt, Jordan M. Schwartz, Kent T.
Hiebel and Nancy D. Wuamett, Esq., of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that as discussed in
the Spring 2017 issue of The Class Action Chronicle, courts have
struggled to define the ascertainability requirement that is
implicit in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Several courts, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First,
Third and Fourth Circuits, have required proof of administrative
feasibility -- i.e., that the identification of class members will
be a manageable process that does not require significant
individual inquiry -- as a prerequisite to class certification.
Other courts, such as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second,
Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, have rejected that
approach, finding that ascertainability does not mandate proof of
administrative feasibility.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently weighed
in on this issue in Cherry v. Dometic Corp., No. 1:16-cv-22482-RNS
(11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021), flatly rejecting an administrative
feasibility requirement despite the apparent embrace of that
requirement in earlier, nonprecedential opinions.
In Cherry, the defendant, Dometic, manufactured gas-absorption
refrigerators. Some of the refrigerators were subject to a recall
due to a defect that increased the risk that the appliances would
leak certain chemicals and cause a fire. Dometic estimated that
0.01% of its refrigerators contained that defect. The putative
class representatives were 18 owners of recalled Dometic
refrigerators. They alleged that the defect was significantly more
widespread than Dometic reported, and that almost every
refrigerator sold between 1997 and 2016 had a design defect.
The primary issue before the district court at the class
certification stage was whether the proposed class satisfied Rule
23's ascertainability requirement. Dometic argued that the class
representatives offered no evidence that their proposed method of
identification of prospective class members would be workable. In
response, the class representatives argued -- citing the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d
1121, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2017) -- that administrative feasibility
was not a precondition for certification under Rule 23. They also
contended that the proposed class was ascertainable because there
were objective criteria for identifying it. The district court
agreed with Dometic, denied class certification and dismissed the
case.
The class representatives appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed
and remanded, holding that "administrative feasibility is relevant
under Rule 23(b)(3), but it is not a prerequisite for
certification." In so doing, the court deviated from its prior
unpublished decisions that applied a heightened standard for
ascertainability and required proof of administrative feasibility.
See, e.g., Karhu v. Vital Pharms., Inc., 621 F. App'x 945, 949
(11th Cir. 2015) (holding that the plaintiff's proposal to use the
company's sales data to establish class membership was insufficient
because the defendant sold primarily to distributors and retailers,
and records would not identify class members).
The Cherry court found that an administrative feasibility
requirement did not follow from the text of Rule 23(a) because the
feasibility of identifying class members had nothing to do with the
qualifications of the putative class representatives, the
practicability of joinder or the existence of common questions of
law or fact. It also found that the administrative feasibility
requirement did not follow from Rule 23(b). It explained that
administrative feasibility is relevant to the court's inquiry under
Rule 23(b)(3)(D), which requires consideration of whether a class
action is manageable and "superior to other available methods" of
resolution, but not dispositive. According to the court, Rule 23 is
a balancing test, and the court must balance manageability against
other considerations. In other words, a lack of administrative
feasibility in identifying class members does not by itself doom
certification.
The Eleventh Circuit further emphasized that if a district court
reaches Rule 23(b), its inquiry should be comparative. It should
first ask, "Would a class action create more manageability problems
than its alternatives?" Then, "How do the manageability concerns
compare with the other advantages or disadvantages of a class
action?" Thus, while the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Cherry
precludes class action defendants from defeating class
certification based on a threshold administrative feasibility
requirement, the decision still allows defendants in the Eleventh
Circuit to argue that administrative feasibility and manageability
concerns weigh against certification.
Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court still has not addressed the circuit
court split regarding Rule 23's ascertainability requirement,
despite multiple opportunities to do so. Cherry could present
another opportunity for it to resolve the growing split if the
defendant seeks review of the ruling.
That said, Cherry extends a trend in appellate decisions away from
the more rigorous approach to ascertainability taken by the First,
Third and Fourth Circuits that arguably began with the Seventh
Circuit's ruling in Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654
(7th Cir. 2015) (decided shortly after the Eleventh Circuit's
unpublished ruling in Karhu, noted above). Since Mullins took issue
with the more rigorous approach to ascertainability, other
appellate rulings have generally followed its approach to the
issue. Similarly, some judges on the Third Circuit have raised
questions about the rigorous approach taken in its pre-Mullins
cases. See, e.g., City Select Auto Sales Inc. v. BMW Bank of N. Am.
Inc., 867 F.3d 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2017) (Fuentes, J., concurring)
(urging court to abandon heightened ascertainability standard);
Byrd v. Aaron's Inc., 784 F.3d 154, 172 (3d Cir. 2015) (Rendell,
J., concurring) ("Our heightened ascertainability requirement
defies clarification. Additionally, it narrows the availability of
class actions in a way that the drafters of Rule 23 could not have
intended."). It may be that the Supreme Court is awaiting further
developments in the hopes that the appellate courts will
consolidate around a uniform approach to ascertainability.
But there are several policy considerations advanced by the
approach taken by the First, Third and Fourth Circuits that argue
against the conclusion the Eleventh Circuit reached and that would
justify eventual Supreme Court review and lead to reversal of this
trend. For example, a driving consideration in the Seventh
Circuit's decision in Mullins was a policy concern that a strong
ascertainability requirement would render class treatment
unavailable or infeasible in certain contexts. But the Supreme
Court has repeatedly cautioned that the class action rule is
supposed to be a neutral procedural rule that does not "guarantee
an affordable procedural path to the vindication of every claim."
Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013).
Nor is Rule 23 intended to alter substantive rights. Accordingly,
Rule 23's requirements should not be interpreted to reflect a
policy preference that certain types of claims should be more
easily certified.
In addition, it is well known that only a small fraction of
eligible claimants (in some cases 1% or less) submit claims for
compensation in consumer class actions that have been approved. As
a result, the cost of litigating many consumer class actions is
already higher than the amount that is recovered by class members.
For this reason, it makes little sense to certify consumer classes
where proof of membership in the class at the time of settlement
would degrade into hundreds or thousands of time-consuming and
expensive trials that require the testimony of class members and
possibly other witnesses (such as family members and the like),
just to prove each claimant actually purchased or was harmed by the
product at issue. A heightened ascertainability requirement that
involves an evaluation of administrative feasibility before
certification would thus weed out unwieldly claims at the outset
and save courts and parties from expending significant resources on
a litigation where consumers stand to receive little actual
benefit.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision in Cherry by no means resolves the
split between the circuit courts on this important issue. While
litigants in individual circuits may have clarity on the contours
of Rule 23's ascertainability requirement, the issue would still
benefit from Supreme Court review to provide class action
practitioners and consumers predictability and uniformity regarding
the threshold requirements to maintain a class action.
Recent Class Action Decisions of Note
Eighth Circuit Affirms Certification of Large Class of 160,000
Retailers Alleging Fraud in Connection With Credit Card Processing
Services
Custom Hair Designs v. Central Payment Co., LLC, 984 F.3d 595 (8th
Cir. 2020)
In an opinion written by Judge William Duane Benton, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's
certification of a class of 160,000 small retailers that used the
defendant's credit card processing services. The plaintiffs brought
claims of breach of contract, fraudulent concealment and civil
racketeering, alleging that the defendant misrepresented a number
of fees, added fees with no value to retailers and inflated fees
without prior approval from issuing banks.
Following a relatively brief analysis, the court found that common
questions and answers predominated among the tens of thousands of
class members. First, despite differences in the retailers'
contracts, all of the plaintiffs alleged failure to get bank
authorization; thus, the relevant contract term was uniform.
Second, the court determined that any pricing differences among the
class would not affect liability, only damages, and that "slight
variation in actual damages does not defeat predominance if there
are common legal questions and common facts." Third, the fact that
some of the retailers' contracts authorized two different types of
fees did not defeat predominance because the inquiry was "not
highly individualized." Fourth, the fact that changes in bank rates
caused tier shifts did not defeat predominance.
The Eighth Circuit also held that the reliance requirement for
common law fraud is not present in Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) cases. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that
overpayments from a pattern of systematic mail fraud in the
defendant's billing would satisfy RICO's causation requirements,
and the issue presented would be common to all plaintiffs. It also
rejected the defendant's claims that differences in statutes of
limitations defeated predominance, agreeing with the plaintiffs
that fraudulent concealment can toll the statute of limitations and
can be proven on a classwide basis.
Fifth Circuit Joins Sister Courts To Hold That Daubert Applies at
Class Certification Stage
Prantil v. Arkema Inc., 986 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2021)
Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, writing for a panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, held that expert evidence
relevant to class certification must satisfy Daubert requirements,
joining multiple other courts of appeals. The plaintiffs brought a
putative class action against a manufacturer of a chemical used to
make plastics after their facilities released allegedly toxic ash
and smoke into the surrounding area following a hurricane. Although
the district court excluded one of the plaintiffs' experts, it
certified the class in reliance on the opinions of three of the
plaintiffs' other experts.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the class certification order,
in part because the district court failed to ensure that those
other experts' opinions fully satisfied the Daubert standard that
governs the admissibility of expert evidence. In joining multiple
other appellate courts that have embraced a full Daubert inquiry at
class certification, the Fifth Circuit relied on Supreme Court
precedent requiring plaintiffs to submit "evidentiary proof" that
their claims satisfy Rule 23 and courts to conduct a "rigorous
analysis" of such proof. Applying this framework, the Fifth Circuit
reasoned that, although the district court excluded the opinions of
one expert, its analysis did not apply Daubert with "full force."
According to the Court of Appeals, this diluted approach to Daubert
was reflected by the district court's own statement expressing
doubt whether a full Daubert analysis applied at class
certification. In addition, the lower court essentially excused a
significant shortcoming of one of the experts (who opined about
chemical contamination without addressing background levels) on the
ground that the case was at class certification, not summary
judgment or trial. As such, the court concluded that the district
court was less searching at the class certification stage than it
would have been outside of the class certification stage, which was
an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated the class
certification order.
California District Court Rules Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring
Nationwide Class Claims in States Where They Do Not Reside
Drake v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:20-cv-01421-SB-PLA, 2020 WL
7040125 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020)
Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California dismissed a putative nationwide
class claims brought by residents of California and Illinois for
lack of standing. The plaintiffs alleged that the steering wheels
of cars manufactured by the defendants were defective and asserted
claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), state
warranty laws and for unjust enrichment. The court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the nationwide class claims,
reasoning that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to assert
claims under the laws of states where the plaintiffs themselves did
not reside. In so reasoning, the court explained that a defendant
does not have to wait until the class certification stage to
challenge a named plaintiff's standing to bring claims on behalf of
absent class members under the laws of those individuals' home
states. The court further explained that the plaintiffs had not
pled any cognizable injuries arising under the laws of states other
than California and Illinois and could not seek redress under such
laws. Finally, the court held that the plaintiffs could not proceed
with nationwide class claims under the MMWA because those claims
are derivative of state warranty claims that the plaintiffs lack
standing to bring. Accordingly, the court dismissed the nationwide
class claims. [GN]
DORM COMPANY: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dorm Company
Corporation. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Dorm Company
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02431 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dorm Company Corporation, also known as DormCo --
https://www.dormco.com/ -- is an American online retailer
headquartered in Buffalo, New York that specializes in dorm
supplies for college students.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
DRAFTKINGS INC: Settles DFS Class Action Lawsuit for $8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shriber, writing for Casino.org, reports that DraftKings will
pay $8 million to class action plaintiffs that asserted the company
didn't accurately represent the difficulty of its daily fantasy
sports (DFS) contests, among other claims,
However, there's a big sticking point. The bulk of the $8 million
being directed to the aggrieved parties -- $7.28 million to be
precise -- won't be delivered in cash. Rather, it will be allocated
in the form of "DK Dollars" -- the equivalent of credits on the
very web site the plaintiffs groused about. The settlement was
reached in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
DraftKings is based in Boston.
The settlement provides significant injunctive relief by
effectuating changes to DraftKings' online platform, and also
provides valuable monetary relief in the form of 'DK Dollars' or US
dollars to settlement class members who made a first-time deposit
into their daily fantasy accounts prior to Jan. 1, 2018 and who are
not net lifetime winners on DraftKings," according to the court
document.
As part of the pact, the gaming company is creating two settlement
funds. One is for the aforementioned $7.28 million to be credited
to DraftKings players as part of the class action. The second fund
will direct $720,000 in cash to former clients whose accounts are
closed.
Under the terms of the settlement, the DFS giant won't fight a $1.9
million class counsel fee, nor will the company oppose $100,000 in
plaintiffs' expenses.
History of DraftKings Legal Tiff
The settlement stems from multiple suits filed by plaintiffs
against DraftKings and rival FanDuel that were combined and
transferred to federal court in Massachusetts in February 2016.
In addition to claiming the two largest DFS providers
misrepresented the difficulty of the games offered, plaintiffs
assert the companies falsely advertised deposit matching bonuses,
while intentionally concealing related fine print. They also claim
DraftKings and FanDuel employees leveraged insider data to compete
against clients in DFS contests.
Following a related scandal, both companies in October 2015 barred
staffers from participating in DFS contests offered by the
employers. That after a DraftKings worker confessed to prematurely
releasing lineup data. The same employee won $350,000 in a FanDuel
competition.
While DraftKings and FanDuel maintain dominant share in the
domestic DFS market, dissatisfaction among casual players has grown
over the years, leading to widely held beliefs that it's almost
impossible for ordinary participants to compete against "sharks" --
DFS participants that play for a living with the means and acumen
to build sophisticated computer programs to aide their quest for
dominance.
The discontent led other companies with different DFS offerings
into the market, and several of those firms drew the eyes of
traditional gaming operators looking to join the daily fantasy
party.
More Settlement Details
The class action involves 3.15 million people and the claims
against FanDuel are still unresolved.
DraftKings acknowledge no culpability. Rather, it noted it has
"substantial and meritorious" answers to the claims. But the
company also said it's "desirable to settle the litigation."
A related settlement web site will be constructed and DraftKings
will notify affected by parties by email, according to the court
document. [GN]
EDEN PALACE: Melendez Sues for Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Melendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Eden Palace Inc., Palace of Eden Inc.,
Emmanuel Roth (a/k/a Mendy), Yechezkiel Roth and Simon Doe,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00949 (E.D. N.Y., February 22, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and
spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a reception hall, located
Brooklyn under the name "Eden Palace" where Melendez was employed
as a cook assistant. He claims to have generally worked in excess
of 40 hours a week without overtime pay for hours in excess of 40
hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays
exceeding 10 hours. He also claims to have never received wage
statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Hise FDCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MacKenzie Hise formerly known as: Mackenzie
Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 21L0148 was removed
from the St. Clair County, Illinois Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on March 19,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00317-RJD to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- http://www.ercbpo.com/--
provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David T. Butsch, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Fax: (314) 863-5711
Email: butsch@butschroberts.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ian M. Jones, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL, ET AL.
50 N. Laura St, Suite 2600
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Phone: (904) 598-6156
Fax: (904) 598-9256
Email: ijones@sgrlaw.com
ETHICON SARL: Court Upholds Decision in Pelvic Mesh Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzy Madar, Esq., Moira Saville, Esq., Kione Johnson, Esq., and
Sarah-Jane Frydman, Esq., of King & Wood Mallesons, disclosed that
in a unanimous decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld
a decision of Justice Katzmann that found Ethicon Sarl and related
companies liable for damages and other relief relating to the
supply of medical devices used in the treatment of female stress
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
The Court (Jagot, Murphy and Lee JJ) dismissed all of the
appellants' grounds of appeal.
Liability
Dismissing the appellants' 17 grounds of appeal, the Full Court
upheld Justice Katzmann's findings that the companies had
contravened various consumer protections in the Trade Practices Act
1974 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law by supplying a product
with a 'defect', that was not of merchantable or acceptable
quality, or fit for purpose and that had been marketed and promoted
in a way that was likely to mislead or deceive. The Full Court
also upheld Justice Katzmann's findings that the companies were
liable in negligence, having breached their duty of care in failing
to warn patients, or their treating doctors, of the risks of
certain complications. The liability of the companies for
breaching their duty of care in relation to pre and post market
clinical evaluation of the products was also upheld on appeal.
The appellants had conceded that the complications suffered by
women who had received the mesh implants could be clinically
significant and could have been caused by the devices. They also
conceded that they knew of the pleaded complications from the time
of first supply.[1]
Negligence
The Full Court upheld the primary judge's finding that the
companies had failed to warn of risks that should have been
disclosed in the instructions for use. To be sufficient,
information about a particular risk must inform users of both the
probability and severity of the potential harm.[2] The Full Court
also rejected the companies' argument on appeal that it was not
necessary to warn of the pleaded complications because some pelvic
surgeons might have been aware of the risk of the complications
that had eventuated or because information about the risk
associated with particular complications was available in the
literature.[3] Here, pelvic surgeons generally were not aware of
the complications that eventuated and in any event, would
reasonably assume that statements about potential side effects in
the instructions for use would reflect what the manufacturer
actually knew.[4]
Despite agreeing with the trial judge's ultimate conclusion in
relation to the appellants' failure to warn, the Full Court
accepted that the standard of care owed by the companies to
patients is affected by the fact that the devices are supplied to
patients via highly skilled surgeons who also owe a duty of care to
patients. Here, it would have been sufficient for the companies to
have warned surgeons of the risk of the complications rather than
patients directly.
The Full Court was satisfied the evidence supported a finding that
if the treating surgeons had known about the risk of the pleaded
complications, they would have communicated them to their patients.
This was despite evidence that the claimants had not been told by
their treating surgeons about every risk that had been included in
the instructions for use (that were found to have been of a
materially different severity to the complications that had
eventuated),[5] and there being an absence of evidence from the
treating surgeons. Given the nature and severity of the
complications that eventuated, the Court was satisfied that if the
risks had been communicated to the claimants, they would not have
had the devices implanted.
The proposition posed by the companies on appeal that the claimants
might have suffered the same injuries even if they had received
alternative treatments was dismissed by the Full Court.
The Full Court also agreed with the primary judge that, on the
evidence, an inference should be drawn that the devices would not
have been on the market at all but for the appellants' negligent
pre-market evaluation.
Relationship between warnings and defective products
Following Merck,[6] the Full Court agreed that goods may be
defective where they present a risk of injury about which a
manufacturer fails to provide sufficient information. Depending on
its severity, the risk need not be high – in Merck, a 0.5%
increased risk of myocardial infarction in the absence of a warning
was enough to constitute a defect. Equally, a product that
presents a serious risk of harm can remain on the market, and even
be a "product of choice", provided the manufacturer provides
appropriate warnings.
It was emphasised in the Full Court's reasons that patients are
generally entitled to expect that manufacturers of medical devices
will provide warnings about the risk of potential complications to
medical practitioners, or directly to patients that are appropriate
in all the circumstances. In this case, no such warnings were
provided.[7]
Goods need not be absolutely free from risk – the level of safety
required is that which the community is entitled to expect.[8]
Misleading or deceptive conduct
The Full Court agreed that the representations that had been made
as to the risks and benefits of using the devices was unsupported,
so as to be misleading. Justice Katzmann had correctly found the
information in the instructions for use and promotional material
(which omitted warnings of the complications and gravity of risks)
was misleading and deceptive.
The Full Court also did not find any error in Justice Katzmann
drawing a conclusion that but for the absence of proper warning, it
was more likely than not that the claimants would not have
undergone treatment using the devices.
The Full Court was not persuaded that proper consideration had not
been given to the evidence of pelvic surgeons, or that preferring
evidence of non-clinical experts involved error.
Further actions
The decision has significant implications for manufacturers of
therapeutic products. The Full Court's findings provide detailed
analysis of the information that is necessary to adequately
disclose potential adverse events and complications that may arise
from use of a medical device or pharmaceutical product.
A second Australian class action was filed in the Federal Court in
January 2019 against American Medical Systems, a manufacturer of a
similar product, and a third in February 2020 against the
manufacturers and distributors of another mesh product, TFS
Manufacturing and Covidien. A further action was commenced against
the Boston Scientific Corporation in the NSW Supreme Court earlier
this month.
The decision may also open the door to litigation against other
respondents. The TFS / Covidien action names a doctor who designed
the mesh implants, and in the UK, claims have been made against the
NHS and surgeons who operated at private hospitals relating to
failure adequately to warn of the risks of mesh implants.
It remains open for the companies to seek special leave to appeal
to the High Court. [GN]
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Bid to Dismiss Smith's First Amended Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD LEE SMITH, JR., individually and on behalf of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATT MARTORELLO and
EVENTIDE CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-1651-AC (D. Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon denies Martorello's
Motion to Dismiss Smith's First Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Smith brings the putative class action against Defendants
Martorello and Eventide. Smith alleges that Martorello
orchestrated a lending scheme that charged Smith and other
Oregonians usurious rates -- in Smith's case, a 527% annualized
rate of interest -- for short-term loans. Smith received his loan
online from Big Picture Loans, LLC, a lender ostensibly created and
controlled by the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians, a Native American tribe. Ostensible, however, is the only
sense in which the Tribe created or controlled Big Picture,
according to Smith's FAC and accompanying exhibits, which total
nearly 400 pages.
As alleged by Smith, Martorello created Big Picture to insulate
himself from liability and rebrand his lending operation after an
enforcement action had been brought by the State of New York
against Martorello and the Tribe's prior lending entities, Red Rock
Tribal Lending, a tribal entity, and Bellicose Capital. Martorello
owned and controlled Bellicose, and Bellicose ran Red Rock's
day-to-day operations.
Soon after the court permitted New York's enforcement action to
proceed, Martorello instructed the Tribe to rebrand Red Rock as Big
Picture. Martorello then caused the Tribe to assume ownership of
Bellicose under the name "Ascension Technologies, LLC." Big
Picture relinquished daily operations to Ascension, even though
Ascension employs no members of the Tribe. Thus, just as Bellicose
in fact ran Red Rock's day-to-day operations, Ascension ran the
operations of Big Picture.
The Tribe purchased Ascension from Martorello with a $300 million
promissory note issued to Defendant Eventide, even though Ascension
appears to be worth only a small fraction of that amount.
Martorello created Eventide shortly before the Tribe acquired
Ascension, and Martorello continues to control and largely own
Eventide. The promissory note provides Eventide with leverage over
Ascension and therefore over Big Picture.
Eventide retains significant authority to decide who leads
Ascension (Ascension's manager is a close associate of Martorello),
set lending policies and block changes in interest rates that
Ascension charges for Big Picture's loans to the putative class
members, and even decide in which jurisdiction Ascension markets
Big Picture's lending services. It receives the bulk of Big
Picture's revenues, while the Tribal entities receive no more than
6% of revenues. Also according to Smith, most of Big Picture's and
Ascension's employees work in the Philippines, Mexico, the Virgin
Islands, or Puerto Rico. The few Tribal members whom Big Picture
employs are paid only minimum wages and perform only menial or
administrative tasks.
Before the Court is Martorello's Motion to Dismiss Smith's FAC for
lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On
Jan. 5, 2021, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation in the case, recommending that the Court denies
Martorello's motion to dismiss.
First, in his Motion to Dismiss Smith's FAC, Martorello invokes the
Tribe's sovereignty. Judge Simon finds that Martorello, however,
is not a member of the Tribe. Nor is Eventide a tribal entity.
Indeed, the tribal entities previously settled with Smith in
litigation pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. Still, Martorello emphasizes that the Fourth
Circuit has held that Big Picture and Ascension are "arms" of the
Tribe, and argues that failure to grant his motion would
"disrespect" the Tribe's sovereignty.
Judge Simon holds that Martorello's reliance on tribal sovereignty
is misplaced. The Court's decision necessarily turns on Smith's
well-pleaded factual allegations, which must be accepted as true at
this stage of the litigation. Because Smith has plausibly alleged
that Martorello, who is not a member of the Tribe, controls Big
Picture's and Ascension's lending operations, neither the Court's
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Martorello nor permitting
Smith's Racketeer Influence and Organized Crime Act ("RICO") and
unjust enrichment claims to proceed violates tribal sovereignty.
Next, Martorello argues that, because the Fourth Circuit found that
Big Picture was an arm of the Tribe, attributing Big Picture's or
Ascension's actions to Martorello improperly "stamps out the
Tribe's" sovereignty. Williams, however, provides no shield for
Martorello. Smith alleges -- and supports with evidence -- that
Martorello controls Big Picture and Ascension. Because Smith's
allegations and evidence must be treated as true at this stage,
Judge Simon holds that they establish that Martorello personally
controls Big Picture's lending activity, including causing Big
Picture's loans to be offered specifically in Oregon. Thus, Smith
has made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over
Martorello. Similarly, the Court's obligation to treat Smith's
well-pleaded facts as true when ruling on Martorello's motion to
dismiss compels the Judge to deny Martorello's motion to dismiss
brought under Rule 12(b)(6).
Martorello then argues that the Court should enforce the choice of
law and forum selection clause in Smith's loan agreement and that
failure to do so ignores the Tribe's sovereign interest in
enforcing its contracts. The Findings and Recommendation, however,
identified four independently sufficient bases for declining to
enforce the choice of law and forum selection clause. One basis
was that the inclusion of the clauses stemmed from fraud, coercion,
or overreach. Smith alleged that he was pressured to sign the loan
during a telephone call even though he was not afforded an
opportunity to review the documents, was not informed of the
exorbitant interest rate, and was not informed that the loan was
being offered under the Tribe's law, which allowed interest rates
much higher than does Oregon law.
Martorello also argues that, for two reasons, allowing Smith's RICO
claim against Martorello to proceed against him represents an
affront to the Tribe's sovereignty. First, to prevail on a RICO
claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant was the proximate
cause of the plaintiff's injury. Second, because Smith's RICO
claim is brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(c), Smith must allege
that Martorello engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.
Judge Simon finds that Martorello's first argument fails for the
same reasons that Martorello's personal jurisdiction argument
failed: It ignores Smith's well-pleaded allegations that Martorello
personally controlled Big Picture's lending operations. When those
allegations are treated as true, as the Court must do at this stage
of the lawsuit, Smith satisfies RICO's proximate cause requirement.
Regarding Martorello's second argument, the Judge holds that
Martorello ignores that Smith has plausibly alleged that
Martorello's purpose in creating the tribal entities was to
unlawfully avoid state usury laws. The Court does not offend tribal
sovereignty by treating as RICO predicates intentional efforts to
violate the law.
Finally, Judge Simon has considered Martorello's remaining
objections and finds them unpersuasive.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Simon adopts Judge Acosta's Findings
and Recommendation as clarified, modified, and supplemented in his
Order and denies Martorello's Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5626usfu from Leagle.com.
FACEBOOK INC: Carpenter Wellington Discusses BIPA Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter Wellington PLLC on March 8 disclosed that Facebook became
the latest company to settle up under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act. This Illinois privacy law is designed to
protect the state's residents from invasive privacy practices.
Facebook is to pay $650 million for its violations of the law.
A California federal judge gave final approval on March 5 in the
settlement with an order to get at least $345 to each of nearly 1.6
million Illinois class members "as expeditiously as possible."
Illinois privacy law facial recognition
The Illinois privacy law has caused headaches ffor many tech
companies in recent years. Lawyers orginally filed the suit against
Facebook in 2015. The suit claimed that Facebook's practice of
tagging people in photos using facial recognition without their
consent violated Illinois state law. The April 2015 lawsuit against
Facebook filed in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of plaintiff
Carlo Licata, alleged that Facebook's use of facial tagging
features without consent was not permitted under Illinois privacy
law.
The class included about 6.9 million Facebook users in Illinois.
Facebook created and stored a face template for each of them after
June 2011. To qualify, Facebook users had to live in Illinois for
at least six months over the last nine years.
The court transferred the case to Chicago federal court and then to
California federal court. The case attained class-action status in
California.
The Settlement Details
The final award is $100 million higher than what Facebook
originally offered. The social media giant initially proposed a
judge found that inadequate.
Facebook disabled the automatic facial recognition tagging features
in 2019… instead making it opt-in. Facebook also took care of
some of the privacy criticisms discussed in the Illinois privacy
law class action suit.
Of the $650 million Facebook agreed to pay, the judge awarded $97.5
million in attorneys' fees and roughly $915,000 in expenses. The
court also awarded $5,000 to each of the three named plaintiffs in
the lawsuit. Each class member will receive an equal share of the
remainder.
A number of lawsuits accused Microsoft, Google, and Amazon of
breaking the same law last year after Illinois residents' faces
were used to train their facial recognition systems without
consent.
Other Tech Companies Tripped up by Illinois Privacy Law
The Illinois privacy law has become an obstacle for some tech
titans; however, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act has
even more potential to affect smaller companies with questionable
privacy practices. Clearview AI is the developer of the
controversial facial recognition software company. It is now the
defendant in its own the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
class action lawsuit. Illinois citizens sued in Illinois because
the company's practices violated of Illinois law. Clearview tried
to avoid the class-action lawsuit. However, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals sent the case back to Illinois state court.
Clearview's scraping includes publicly available photos, location
data, and other information. Plaintiffs say that this information
came from a number of websites and social media platforms. They say
Clearview's conduct violated the Illinois privacy law. That law
requires companies to obtain permission from subjects prior to
collecting and selling access to the data.
The court might hit Clearview with a verdict or settlement. If so,
the company might go out of business in the state altogether. In
fact, in May of last year, with the prospect of defending a number
of lawsuits, the New York-based startup announced that it was
cancelling the accounts of every customer "who was not either
associated with law enforcement or some other federal, state, or
local government department, office, or agency."
Summary
Some see the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act as the
blueprint for other states to copy, which would create severe
headaches for tech companies trying to do business on a
state-by-state basis. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Faces EEOC Probe Over Alleged Systemic Racial Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
IANS reports that Facebook is under investigation in the US for
alleged systematic bias and racial discrimination in hiring and
promotions.
According to a Forbes report, the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) is probing whether Facebook has engaged in
systemic racial bias following a complaint filed by an employee and
two job applicants.
The EEOC is now investigating whether there is widespread and
"systematic" racial discrimination in hiring and promotions at the
social network.
A Black manager and two Black applicants who were rejected by
Facebook filed the EEOC complaint.
The alleged that the social network "discriminates against Black
employees" by mandating racial discrimination complaints be
arbitrated in a "secret forum," relying on "culture fit" in hiring
and preferring "most white and Asian employees".
The EEOC has not brought allegations against Facebook yet.
A Facebook spokesperson told The Verge on March 6: "We believe it
is essential to provide all employees with a respectful and safe
working environment. We take any allegations of discrimination
seriously and investigate every case."
In 2018, a Facebook employee published an internal memo sent to his
co-workers on his last day at the company, where he said the
company mistreated its Black employees.
"In some buildings, there are more 'Black Lives Matter' posters
than there are actual black people. Facebook can't claim that it is
connecting communities if those communities aren't represented
proportionately in its staffing," Facebook partnerships manager
Mark Luckie had said.
Facebook's latest diversity report showed the company was short of
its goal to have 50 per cent of its workforce from underrepresented
groups by 2024.
Not just Facebook, Google too has been accused of racial
discrimination at workplace.
In 2018, a former employee sued Google for "discrimination,
harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination", alleging that
the company fired him over writing pro-diversity internal posts.
Tim Chevalier, a software developer and former site-reliability
engineer at Google, was fired in November 2017 after he made
several internal posts against racism and sexism, according to
reports.
In 2017, three former Google employees filed a class-action lawsuit
against the tech giant, accusing it of discriminating against women
when it came to pay and promotions.
"Google pays women in California less than men who perform similar
work and assigns female workers jobs that are less likely to lead
to promotions," alleged the three former employees who served as
software engineer, communications specialist and manager at the
company. [GN]
FEDEX CORPORATE: Bid to Certify Class in Abdallah TCPA Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Najeh Abdallah, Plaintiff v. FedEx Corporate Services,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-3967 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Joan B. Gotsschall of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
Plaintiff Abdallah brought the case as a class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended ("TCPA"), 47
U.S.C. Section 227. Following the conclusion of merits discovery
in 2019, the Court partially denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, finding that genuine disputes of material fact
exist on Abdallah's claim that defendants violated the TCPA by
placing hundreds of "trace calls" to his cell number even though
his number was listed on the national do-not-call registry.
Defendant FedEx, or a contractor providing call center services,
places a "trace call" to the shipper when something is preventing
the delivery of a package shipped internationally. Two FedEx
contractors, C3/CustomerContactChannels, Inc. and Harte Hanks,
Inc., are co-Defendants in the case.
Before the Court is Abdallah's motion for class certification under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As the party
seeking class certification, Abdallah bears the burden to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence that the four requirements of Rule
23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation -- and the requirements for at least one of the
three categories under Rule 23(b) are satisfied. The Rule 23(a)
requirements of numerosity, typicality, and adequacy suffice to
resolve Abdallah's motion for class certification.
Abdallah proposes to certify the following class and a single
subclass defined as:
a. The Class: All persons in the United States who received
at least two trace calls placed by FedEx or C3 on their cellular
telephone in any 12-month period since July 1, 2015 and which were
received more than 31 days after the recipient's telephone number
was registered on the National Do-Not Call Registry.
b. The Subclass: All persons in the United States who
received at least two trace calls placed by FedEx or C3 on their
cellular telephone in any 12-month period since July 1, 2015 and
which were received more than 31 days after the recipient's
telephone number was registered on the National Do-Not Call
Registry and who were not a FedEx customer.
The parties refer to the proposed subclass as a "wrong number"
subclass. Abdallah explains that the subclass's defining
characteristic is that all of the calls to subclass members were
erroneously placed to the wrong person. Abdallah never explains
exactly why he believes the subclass is necessary. Regardless, the
proposed class and subclass must "satisfy the requirements for
certifying a class, so that each could be the plaintiff class in a
separate class action.
The Defendants separately move to strike three exhibits, in part or
in whole, to Abdallah's motion for class certification. They
primarily challenge the admissibility of the expert report of Anya
Verkhovskaya under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
They contend in their second motion to strike that portions of the
Verkhovskaya declaration and the declaration of one of Abdallah's
lawyers, Eugene Y. Turin, contain inadmissible hearsay from
Verkhovskaya not disclosed in her report or at her deposition.
Judge Gotsschall notes that to satisfy the numerosity requirement,
the Plaintiff must show that the proposed class "is so numerous
that joinder of all members is impracticable." She opines that
Abdallah cites nonbinding statements in district court cases to the
effect that he need only provide a good faith estimate of the
class's size. He also argues that he must present only "concrete
evidence that goes beyond speculation" satisfying the numerosity
requirement.
In addition to Abdallah's concession that he has produced no
evidence of other "wrong number" trace calls, the Judge finds
uncontested evidence in the record that raises a legitimate doubt
that any other members of the subclass exist. She cannot infer
that a sufficiently numerous subclass exists. Abdallah had the
opportunity to conduct nearly nine months of class certification
discovery following summary judgment. He agreed to a method for
sampling call data to support his class certification motion, but
the sampling method yielded no evidence that any other "wrong
number" calls were made to members of the proposed subclass.
The Judge also finds undisputed evidence submitted by the
Defendants that supports a finding that the proposed class, but not
the subclass, satisfies Rule 23(a)(1)'s test of numerosity. They
produced more than two thirds of the case notes they initially
identified as potentially responsive. However, it is reasonable to
infer, given the large number of records for these 150 numbers,
that the entire class, which again covers a greater time period, is
large enough to make joinder infeasible.
The parties analyze typicality and adequacy together. Typicality
ensures that class representatives have an 'incentive to litigate
vigorously' the claims of the absent class members. The adequacy
of representation requirement focuses on whether "the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."
The Judge opines that the numerosity problem with Abdallah's
proposed subclass foreshadows the typicality problem, but the
problem affects the class as a whole. Abdallah attempts to define
the common course of conduct broadly as the placing of trace calls,
but as explained, uncontroverted evidence in the record establishes
that Abdallah's receipt of hundreds of trace calls resulted from a
unique problem with FedEx's OneSource database. He has produced no
evidence, and does not argue, that any other person ever received
calls as the result of a similar problem.
On this record, the unique circumstances that gave rise to
Abdallah's receipt of unwanted trace calls makes his legal and
factual arguments markedly different from those of the class. One
of the allegedly common issues for class resolution is whether
class members had a prior business relationship with FedEx. Yet
Abdallah advances arguments unique to him that he effectively
terminated any business relationship he had with FedEx when he
began receiving trace calls from FedEx. Thus, Abdallah intends to
pursue arguments for establishing the Defendants' liability
unavailable to other class members on this record. That makes his
claims atypical under Rule 23(a)(3) because he lacks an adequate
incentive to pursue the interests of absent class members.
Thus, Abdallah has failed to carry his burden to submit enough
evidence to find that his claims, which appear to result from a
one-time database glitch, are adequately comparable with those of
the absentee class members.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Gotsschall denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification. She denied the motion as to the
subclass on numerosity grounds. She denied as to the class as a
whole on typicality grounds. The Judge denied as moot the
Defendants' motions to strike certain exhibits to the motion for
class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yphef75a from
Leagle.com.
FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Sugarcane Burning Class Action Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Gaffney, writing for WLRN, reports that lawmakers put
Florida's 'Right to Farm Act' into statute decades ago to protect
farmers from conflicts created by new neighbors. Whether that
conflict result from the smell of cow manure or the clucking of
chickens, neighbors can't say the farm is a nuisance if it's been
operating for a year or more and wasn't considered a nuisance when
it started. There are exceptions, but those are limited.
Sen. Jason Brodeur (R-Lake Mary) wants to make it even harder for
people to sue farms under the state's 'Right To Farm Act.' His bill
adds "particle emissions" to the list of protected farm operations.
Florida Conservation Voter's Aliki Moncrief is concerned "particle
emissions" refers to the black snow that comes from sugarcane
burning.
"We see it as a direct response to communities standing up trying
to seek legal relief for the sugar cane burning and the legislature
coming in and saying, 'oh, no, actually we want to make sure that
the farming operations that burn are protected,'" Moncrief says.
A federal class-action lawsuit against Florida Crystals, the United
States Sugar Corporation, and more alleges the pre-harvest burning
of sugarcane in South Florida releases pollutants that cause
respiratory problems.
If someone wanted to sue a farm for being a nuisance, they would
have to own property within a half-mile of the farm under Brodeur's
bill. In cases like the lawsuit, David Cullen with Sierra Club
Florida says the smoke goes beyond a half-mile radius.
"That smoke travels for 25 miles. More than 25 miles. They're
suffering respiratory conditions, and they are being harmed by
this," Cullen says.
Studies based in Brazil have shown that sugar cane burning is
associated with respiratory diseases, especially in children under
five. Brodeur's bill specifically mentions controlled burning as a
practice that may result in increased complaints. But Brodeur says
his measure wouldn't affect the federal lawsuit.
"This bill is not retroactive. It's not federal. It's state. And
so, this has nothing to do with those pending actions. Remember
what we said, if you're not adhering to state and federal
guidelines with regard to health and safety, you are still liable
as a farming operation," Brodeur says.
But Cullen says Brodeur's measure would disenfranchise people in
the future who are harmed by farming operations.
"They limit the possible damages not to the injuries they have
suffered, not to the harm that a person suffers but only to the
amount that the property that they own within that half-mile
distance is diminished. So, if somebody gets sick and has to go to
the hospital and has medical bills, the cost that they have to
outlay for those medical bills is not considered in what they would
receive," Cullen says.
If someone sues a farm for being a nuisance and loses the case,
Brodeur's bill would force them to pay the farm's legal fees.
Cullen says if people go against big sugar, like in the
class-action lawsuit, losing could mean bankruptcy. The Florida
Farm Bureau's Adam Basford says things like controlled-burning in
sugarcane fields are highly regulated. And if farmers are following
the rules, they need to be protected.
"Farmers and ranchers are critical, I mean, in order to have a
stable food supply, we have to have domestic food production in the
state -- we don't want to be beholden to foreign countries and
things for our food production," Basford says.
As for the pending litigation in South Florida, he says burning is
an essential practice for sugarcane growers. Brodeur's measure is
now heading to a vote on the Senate floor. [GN]
GEICO CORP: Must Face Policyholders' Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that the
auto insurer Geico Corp., a unit of Warren Buffett's Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., must face a proposed class action claiming it
overcharged policyholders as the coronavirus pandemic led to less
driving and fewer accidents, a judge has ruled.
In a decision on March 4, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman in Chicago said Illinois drivers may try to prove Geico
violated a state consumer fraud law by unfairly and deceptively
marketing its "Geico Giveback" discount program. She dismissed
breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims.
Neither Geico nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for
comment on March 5. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately
respond to similar requests.
Geico had last April offered policyholders $2.5 billion of credits,
including 15% on renewals from April to October, averaging about
$150 per policy.
But policyholders led by Briana Siegal said this induced them to
renew and pay excessive premiums rather than shop around, as
stay-at-home orders and closures of businesses and schools resulted
in less time on the road.
Siegal also said Geico's credits compared unfavorably with refunds
offered by other insurers.
She cited a report by the Consumer Federation of America and Center
for Economic Justice awarding Geico's program a "D-minus," below
the "A" and "B" grades given to State Farm and Allstate Corp, which
offered refunds.
Without ruling on the merits, Coleman said the plaintiffs
adequately alleged that Geico misled them into thinking it was
passing on all its savings from reduced driving, and failed to
disclose that its premiums were "not based on an accurate
assessment of risk during COVID-19."
Geico's "loss ratio," or percentage of premiums paid to cover
claims, fell to 74.1% in 2020 from 81.3% a year earlier, and was
the lowest since 2007.
Berkshire, based in Omaha, Nebraska, has owned all of Geico since
1996. Geico is based in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
The case is Siegal v. Geico Casualty Co. et al, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, No. 20-04306. [GN]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Fondacaro Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIANA FONDACARO; and MAYRA VERDUZCO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05032 (D.N.J., Mar. 12, 2021)
alleges that the Defendant sold commercial baby foods despite being
aware, based on its own internal testing, that many ingredients in
those foods contained levels of neurotoxic chemicals such as
inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, that are dangerous
for babies.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants made
claims and representations are deceptive, misleading, and false.
The Defendant's packaging labels do not list, let alone warn,
potential customers that the baby products contain inorganic
arsenic and toxic heavy metals at levels unsafe for babies.
Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well
as offers life and health insurance products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
-and-
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Kelly FDUTPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREA KELLY and COLE MILLICAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Case No. CACE-21-003026-04, was removed from the Florida
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 18,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-60602-AHS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express and
implied warranties, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
by engaging in deceptive and misleading advertising, labeling, and
marketing of its baby food products.
Gerber Products Company is an American purveyor of baby food and
baby products headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sheldon A. Philp, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
Southeast Financial Center
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131-2352
Telephone: (305) 371-2700
Facsimile: (305) 358-5744
E-mail: sphilp@whitecase.com
GRIDDY ENERGY: Class Action Over Electricity Charges Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew S. Schwartz, writing for OPB, reports that in January,
Dallas resident Shannon Marrs paid $257 for electricity. But after
Texas suffered the worst winter storm in years, Marrs' February
electricity bill totaled more than $10,000.
That's because for a period of 32 hours during the deepest freeze
of February's winter storm, power companies were paying $9 per
kilowatt-hour for electricity -- about 75 times higher than the
state's average winter costs. Companies passed those costs on to
consumers.
Texans facing those unexpected bills were hoping that Texas'
utility regulator would retroactively reduce the electricity market
prices. But on March 5, the Public Utility Commission of Texas
chose to let the charges stand.
It might seem like retroactively reducing the charges would be good
for consumers, said Texas PUC Chairman Arthur D'Andrea during the
March 5 public meeting. But, he argued, that reflects a
"simplistic" view of how Texas power markets work.
"We just see the tip of the iceberg," D'Andrea said. "You don't
know who you're hurting. You think you're protecting the consumer
and turns out you're bankrupting a co-op or a city. And so it's
dangerous, after something is run, to go around and redo it."
The PUC itself had authorized the wholesale price increase, hoping
it would spur power companies to generate more electricity. But
according to the state's independent market monitor, prices were
kept high for much longer than necessary.
The monitor, Potomac Economics, had urged the PUC to retroactively
change prices for 32 hours around Feb. 18 and 19. Potomac Economics
calculated that the inflated electricity rate during that time
period led to $16 billion in additional charges.
But D'Andrea and the PUC's other commissioner were reluctant to
retroactively tamper with the pricing. "Decisions were made about
these prices in real time based on information that was available
to everybody, to all market participants," D'Andrea said. "And they
did all sorts of things that they wouldn't have done if the prices
were different. And it's just nearly impossible to unscramble this
sort of egg.
"And the results of going down this path are unknowable," he added.
"I know, on the surface, it looks like -- oh no, it's just money
that generators got, and if you reverse it, it will go to the
consumers. But that is very simplistic, and it's not how it
works."
Potomac Economics Vice President Carrie Bivens told NPR she
continues to be concerned about certain market outcomes that came
out of February's storm. "The commission faced a difficult decision
with the potential for unintended consequences in either
direction," she said.
The state's electricity companies have said they will work with
consumers to set up payment plans. But so far, customers have had
little luck getting the charges dropped.
One woman who faced a $9,340 bill has filed a class action lawsuit
to recover $1 billion in monetary relief from Griddy, an
electricity company in the state. And Texas Attorney General Ken
Paxton is suing the company for deceptive practices —
specifically, for promising Texans cheap "wholesale" prices when it
knew that energy costs could increase during high demand.
Griddy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On its
website, the company says it didn't make the choice to raise
prices. The Texas PUC "mandated the maximum price for days -- a
decision they made to take the price out of the hands of the
market," Griddy wrote. [GN]
GRIDDY ENERGY: Customers Seek to Prevent Tampering of Evidence
--------------------------------------------------------------
Potts Law Firm on March 8 disclosed that attorneys pursuing a class
action claim on behalf of almost 30,000 customers of Griddy have
filed a motion to prevent the electricity provider from tampering
with any internal documentation or physical evidence stemming from
the February winter storm in Texas. The filing also requests that
Griddy be ordered to cease any further automatic debits from
customers' bank accounts and credit cards, and remove any negative
credit reporting and penalties against those customers.
"Since filing the proposed class action on February 22, we have
heard from hundreds of Texans across the state with reports of
excessive and exorbitant bills, collection efforts, and large
withdrawals from personal bank accounts and credit cards by Griddy
representatives, sometimes causing accounts to be overdrawn," says
Derek Potts of the Potts Law Firm in Houston, who represents the
proposed class and lead plaintiff Lisa Khoury.
"Although Griddy is now suspended from operating, we're concerned
that these attempts to cause financial harm will continue, and
internal records that support our claims of deceptive practices by
the company will be destroyed. We are asking the court to move
quickly in granting this request."
The filing notes that Griddy withdrew $150 from Ms. Khory's bank
account eight times during the winter storm before she was able to
switch providers, and that she allegedly still owes almost $9,700.
The class action filed on behalf of Ms. Khoury and all other Griddy
customers seeks monetary relief of more than $1 billion.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act among other claims. Griddy was barred from
participating in the state's power market on February 26, and Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed litigation with similar
allegations related to Griddy's violations of state law in the same
Houston court on February 28.
The proposed class action is Lisa Khoury v. Griddy Energy LLC, No.
2021-10004 filed in the 133rd District Court of Harris County,
Texas. [GN]
GUILD MORTGAGE: Underpays Loan Officer Assistants, Mayoral Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO MAYORAL and MIGUEL MAYORAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00485-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Nevada Law including failure to pay overtime, failure
to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to timely pay all wages
due and owing.
Plaintiffs Sergio and Miguel Mayoral have been employed by the
Defendant as loan officer assistants in Las Vegas, Nevada from on
or about April 26, 2019 to on or about January 24, 2020 and from on
or about April 3, 2019 to on or about January 3, 2020,
respectively.
Guild Mortgage Company is a mortgage lender with a principal place
of business at 5898 Copley Drive 5th Floor, San Diego, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS: Lerner Suit Asserts Ebook Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
Cecily Lerner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HarperCollins Publishers LLC, Simon &
Schuster, Inc., Macmillan Publishing Group LLC, Hachette Book Group
and Penguin Random House LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01561
(S.D. N.Y., February 22, 2021), seeks a permanent injunction
preventing the Defendants from continuing anticompetitive effects
and damages pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.
Defendants are publishers and book retailers who are alleged of
monopolizing the ebook market and in the process eliminate all
substitute products and retail competitors. They are accused of
restraining competition by controlling the prices paid for eBooks
purchased from Harpercollins Publishers LLC, Simon & Schuster,
Inc., Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC, Hachette Book Group and
Penguin Random House LLC through retail platforms other than
Amazon.com causing book buyers to overpay for eBooks.
Lerner is a consumer and direct purchaser of electronic books
published by the Defendants through the Amazon.com retail platform.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: bmurray@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
- and -
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
Email: espector@srkattorneys.com
jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
bcaldes@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
HILL'S PET NUTRITION: July 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Hill's Prescription Diet or Science Diet Canned
Dog Food Between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019, Your Rights
May Be Affected by a Class Action Settlement
The following statement is being issued by Mason Lietz & Klinger
LLP, KamberLaw LLC, Reese LLP, and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP
regarding the Hill's Prescription Diet or Science Diet Canned Dog
Food Settlement.
WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit called In
Re: Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc. Dog Food Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 19-md-2887-JAR-TJJ, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas. The lawsuit claims that
certain Hill's Prescription Diet and Science Diet canned dog food
products had high levels of Vitamin D. The lawsuit alleges that
purchasers of these products lost money by purchasing dog food
products that were not manufactured as represented and/or paid for
veterinarian services as a result of injuries to their dogs.
Defendants deny that class action lawsuits are the most
appropriate, efficient or comprehensive way to help consumers whose
pets may have been affected by the recall. Defendants are entering
into this settlement to avoid burdensome and costly litigation and
to focus on timely addressing consumer complaints.
WHO IS INCLUDED?
You are included in the Settlement if you purchased Hill's
Prescription Diet and/or Science Diet canned dog food products in
the U.S. between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019. A detailed
list of products is available at www.PetFoodSettlement.com.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Consumer Food Purchase: If you purchased Hill's Prescription Diet
and/or Science Diet canned dog food products between September 1,
2018 and May 31, 2019, you could get a full refund with Proof of
Purchase or up to $20 total without Proof of Purchase. You must
submit a valid Claim Form by July 2, 2021.
Dog Injury: If your dog suffered injuries consistent with the
consumption of excess Vitamin D as a result of your dog eating
Hill's Prescription Diet and/or Science Diet canned dog food
products, you could receive money. You must submit a valid Claim
Form with proper documentation by July 2, 2021.
You can find more details on how to submit a claim by visiting
www.PetFoodSettlement.com or calling 1-833-537-1191.
WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?
* Do Nothing. You will not receive any benefits from the
Settlement. You will be legally bound by decisions of the Court and
you give up your right to sue Defendants relating to the claims
resolved by this Settlement.
* Exclude Yourself. If you do not want to be included in the
Settlement, you must submit a written request to the Settlement
Administrator, Settlement Class Counsel, and Defendants' Counsel by
June 21, 2021. You will keep your right to sue Defendants about the
claims in this case, but you will not receive money. Detailed
instructions on how to exclude yourself are found on
www.PetFoodSettlement.com.
* Object/Comment. You have the right to object to or comment on
the Settlement and still get benefits. If you want to object to or
tell the Court what you think about the Settlement, you must submit
your objection/comment in writing by June 21, 2021. Detailed
instructions on how to object or comment are found on
www.PetFoodSettlement.com.
The Court will hold a hearing on July 27, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. by
Zoom Video, which may be moved to a different location, time or
date. The Zoom Video link will be posted on
www.PetFoodSettlement.com. At the hearing, the Court will hear
objections, determine if the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and consider Settlement Class Counsel's request for fees
and expenses and a Service Award for the Class Representatives. You
may attend the Final Approval Hearing and ask to be heard by the
Court, but you do not have to attend. Attorneys' fees and expense
requests will be posted on www.PetFoodSettlement.com after they are
filed with the Court.
This is only a summary. For more information about the settlement
and benefits, visit www.PetFoodSettlement.com, call 1-833-537-1191,
or write to Hill's Pet Food Settlement Program, c/o Settlement
Administrator, PO Box 97, Warminster, PA 18974-0097. [GN]
HOMER LAUGHLIN: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Homer Laughlin
China Company. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Homer Laughlin
China Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-02436 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Homer Laughlin China Company --
https://www.fiestatableware.com/ -- is a ceramics manufacturer
located in Newell, West Virginia, United States, established in
1871 and widely known for its retail dinnerware line, Fiesta.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
HOWARD CTY, MD: Kim Files Suit v. BOE
-------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Board of Education of
Howard County. The case is styled as Lisa M.F. Kim, individually
and as Parent and Next Friend of J.K., a minor; William F. Holland,
and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Board of Education
of Howard County, Case No. 1:21-cv-00655-DKC (D. Md., March 16,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Voting Civil Rights for Violation
of Constitutional Rights.
Howard County Board of Education (BOE) --
https://www.hcpss.org/board/ -- is responsible for setting local
education policy consistent with state and federal laws governing
public education.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael F Smith, Esq.
THE SMITH APPELLATE LAW FIRM
1717 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1025
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 454-2860
Fax: (202) 747-5630
Email: smith@smithpllc.com
ILLINOIS: Attorneys' Fees & Costs Award in Holmes v. IDOC Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH HOLMES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, Acting Director of Illinois Department of
Corrections, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 20-2236 & 20-2709 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit enters
order:
(i) affirming the district court's decision awarding
$52,357.50 in fees and $1,741.35 in costs to the
Plaintiffs; and
(ii) reversing the decision of the district court requiring
IDOC to ensure that inmates receive audiological
evaluations or re-evaluations within the timeframe
ordered.
In the underlying class action, the Plaintiffs are Illinois prison
inmates with hearing problems. They alleged on behalf of deaf and
hard-of-hearing inmates in the Illinois Department of Corrections
("IDOC") custody that IDOC unlawfully denied them "the assistance
they need to communicate effectively and participate in IDOC
programs and services." The parties executed a Settlement in July
2018 to resolve their dispute.
Among other things, the Settlement requires IDOC to screen inmates
for hearing problems, to refer inmates in need to a licensed
audiologist for a more thorough audiological evaluation, and then
to maintain records of inmates' evaluations and provide inmates
with certain care according to the results of their evaluations.
For about a year after the district court approved the Settlement,
IDOC admits that it incorrectly referred about 700 inmates to
licensed hearing instrument dispensers ("LHIDs") -- i.e.,
hearing-aid salesmen -- instead of audiologists for their
audiological evaluations ("LHID violations"). IDOC discontinued
the practice in July 2019 after the parties reached an out-of-court
agreement to resolve it.
In 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the Settlement
arguing that IDOC is not ensuring that the audiological evaluations
are completed within a reasonable time period; they allege there is
as much as an eight-month gap between their screenings and their
audiological evaluations. The Plaintiffs also sought attorney fees
for the investigation and resolution of the LHID violations.
This motion to enforce the Settlement and for attorney fees
involved two aspects of the agreement. First, the Settlement
requires IDOC to ensure that inmates whose hearing screenings show
that they are deaf or hard of hearing are "referred to an
audiologist for an Audiological Evaluation at the earlier of: (a)
30 days after arrival to their home facility; or (b) 45 days after
being admitted into IDOC custody." Second, the Settlement states
that if the court finds that IDOC "has been in substantial
non-compliance" with the Settlement, the court "has the power to
enter, and will enter, whatever orders are necessary to ensure
compliance with the terms of the Settlement." That power includes
awarding "reasonable attorney's fees for any work expended by Class
Counsel in investigating and litigating such non-compliance."
The district court concluded that IDOC was in substantial
non-compliance with the Settlement through the LHID violations, and
it thus ordered IDOC to pay the Plaintiffs about $54,000 in
attorney fees for the investigation and resolution of those
violations ("attorney-fee decision"). The district court also
determined that the Settlement requires IDOC to ensure the
audiological evaluations are completed within a reasonable
timeframe, which it defined as 90 days after a referral
("evaluation decision"). Finally, it ordered IDOC to ensure that
the 700 inmates who received inadequate evaluations by LHIDs were
given proper audiological evaluations by Aug. 28, 2020 -- about 12
weeks after the date of the court's order ("reevaluation
decision").
IDOC appeals these three decisions. The Seventh Circuit stayed the
effect of evaluation and re-evaluation decisions during the
pendency of the appeal.
The Seventh Circuit concludes that the district court correctly
awarded attorney fees to the Plaintiffs based on IDOC's
"substantial non-compliance" with the Settlement of referring about
700 inmates for inadequate evaluations. But the district court
incorrectly determined that IDOC was obligated to ensure that its
prison inmates receive audiological evaluations (or re-evaluations)
within a set timeframe -- the Settlement contains no such
requirement.
Regarding the attorney-fee decision, the Appellate Court finds that
(i) the Settlement provides that the district court "may award
reasonable attorney's fees for any work expended by Class Counsel
in investigating and litigating non-compliance"; and (ii) the
district court correctly found that because IDOC was in substantial
non-compliance with the Settlement through the LHID violations, it
could award attorney fees for the resolution of that
non-compliance.
Regarding the evaluation and re-evaluation decisions, the Appellate
Court holds that there are no provisions in the Settlement
requiring IDOC to ensure that the audiological evaluations are
completed within a set timeframe. As a result, the district
court's evaluation decision -- which required IDOC to ensure that
the evaluations be completed within 90 days of an inmate's referral
-- was unsupported. Further, the court's re-evaluation decision --
which required IDOC to ensure the re-evaluation, by Aug. 28, 2020,
of the 700 inmates who suffered the LHID violations -- likewise
went beyond the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
As stated, the Settlement gives the district court power to enter
orders "to ensure compliance" with the settlement. While the
attorney-fee decision falls within this grant of authority, the
re-evaluation decision does not because it imposes a duty on IDOC
not specified by the Settlement -- in other words, it requires IDOC
to do more than merely "comply." For that reason, the court did
not have authority to enter such a sanction.
For the foregoing reasons, the Seventh Circuit affirms the district
court's decision awarding $52,357.50 in fees and $1,741.35 in costs
to the Plaintiffs, and it reverses the decision of the district
court requiring IDOC to ensure that inmates receive audiological
evaluations or re-evaluations within the timeframe ordered. The
Seventh Circuit terminates its stay of the district court's order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/nkzeyc73 from Leagle.com.
INFINITY Q: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund
("Infinity Q" or the "Company") Investor Class shares (NASDAQ:
IQDAX) or Institutional Class shares (NASDAQ: IQDNX) between
December 21, 2018 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Infinity Q investors have until April 27, 2021 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
On February 23, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled, "Investment Firm Halts Redemptions on $1.8 Billion Fund:
Infinity Q Capital Management bans its chief investment officer
from trading after discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings".
The article reported that Infinity Q "asked the Securities and
Exchange Commission to halt redemptions on one of its mutual funds
and forbid its chief investment officer from trading after
discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings." The article
continued to state that, "[t]he fund was unable to calculate an NAV
on February 19, 2021, and it is uncertain when the fund will be
able to calculate an NAV that would enable it to satisfy requests
for redemptions of fund shares[.]"
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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.
If you purchased Infinity Q securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than April 27, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Infinity Q securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
iRhythm Technologies (IRTC)
Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-irtc/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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 KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on March 8 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Jianpu Technology Inc. ("Jianpu" or the "Company") (NYSE: JT)
securities from May 29, 2018 through February 16, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 19, 2021 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Jianpu's Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit engaged in transactions involving undisclosed related
parties or lacking in business substance. As a result, the
Company's revenues, costs, and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019
were overstated. The Company suffered from material weaknesses in
its internal controls over financial reporting. 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 Jianpu, investors suffered damages.
On February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review
into "transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit" with third-party business entities. The Company
concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses
had been inflated due to "certain transactions [that] involved
third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream
suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions
[that] lacked business substance." Jianpu stated that it
"anticipates the total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal
years 2018 and 2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164
million, respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of
the total revenue previously reported." On this news, the Company's
share price fell $0.60, or 13.2%, to close at $3.94 per share on
February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Jianpu securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
JONES TILE: Rubin Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NICKOLAS RUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JONES TILE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00190-LPR (E.D. Ark., March 10, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from early 2019 until
November 2020 as an hourly and non-exempt employee, who was
primarily responsible for driving to the Defendant's customers'
locations and polishing floors.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other hourly
employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with the Defendant. However, the Defendant
failed to properly pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek because the
Defendant did not include their nondiscretionary bonuses in their
regular rates when calculating their overtime pay. Moreover, the
Defendant allegedly rounded hours worked by the Plaintiff and other
hourly employees which resulted in hours worked by them which went
unrecorded and uncompensated, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated hourly employees
seeking to recover unpaid overtime premiums for all hours worked
over 40 hours in any week, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
Jones Tile, Inc. is a retailer of flooring needs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
KANYE WEST: Sunday Service Wage Class Actions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Rhian Daly, writing for NME, reports that Kanye West's presidential
campaign broke fundraising rules, according to a report from the
Federal Election Commission (FEC).
The rapper unsuccessfully ran for US president in 2020 and
suggested when admitting defeat that he would run again in 2024.
However, he will need to change the way he raises money for the
campaign, with the FEC citing several violations of their
practices. It is illegal for presidential hopefuls to intentionally
seek and accept donations from minors or take money from non-US
citizens.
West appears to have accepted money from people under 18 and there
are question marks over contributions from foreign nationals after
false names were spotted in the donor list. Some of these names
were accompanied by addresses that are linked to drop-shipping
sites in the US, suggesting they were used in place of the donors'
real addresses.
One of the rapper's fundraising strategies was to sell campaign
much on his website, including hats and hoodies. According to a
report from the Daily Beast, a number of teenagers bought these
items, with the profits going to the star's campaign.
Overall, students reportedly made up more than 1,200 of the 3,161
donors to West's presidential run, contributing $349,160 (£252k)
in total.
One such donor was 16-year-old Ian Bloom, who told the publication
he had spent $3,280 (£2,371) on campaign merchandise but had yet
to receive any of it. "I don't know what's happening there," Bloom
said. "I ordered like 20 hoodies off his campaign website, along
with a lot of other people that I know. They said it would be three
weeks, and after that, I emailed the support team, and the email
just wasn't a thing."
He explained that he had bought the hoodies to resell online and
that he was in contact with other resellers on Discord. "I can say
with confidence that at least half of us in the group have to be
still in high school," he said.
As well as looking into these donations, the FEC could also launch
an investigation into West's allegedly unlawful fundraising
practices that saw him gain nearly $100,000 (£72k) in small
donations so far this year.
Last month, West was the subject of two class-action lawsuits from
around 500 performers and 300 backstage workers who played a role
in his Sunday Service shows.
The suits allege that the rapper failed to pay hundreds of
employees on time -- or at all -- as well as not delivering the
overtime wages, meal and rest breaks and business expenses to which
employees were legally entitled. West has not commented on the
lawsuits. [GN]
KEOLIS TRANSIT: Faces Frazier ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE FRAZIER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEOLIS TRANSIT AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case 0:21-cv-60564-RAR (S.D. Fla., Mar. 11, 2021)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant was
motivated in its unequal treatment of the Plaintiff because of his
complaints or opposition to unlawful discrimination with regard to
its perception that he was disabled. The Defendant failed to engage
in the interactive process by providing any alternatives to a
urinalysis. Instead, the Plaintiff was subjected to a shy bladder
protocol by the Defendant through their third-party agent that
resulted in the Plaintiff being subjected to further medical
screenings for alleged safety concerns as well as humiliation, the
suit says.
Keolis Transit America Inc. manages and operates a public
transportation service. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary A. Costales, Esq.
GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 375-9510
Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
KILWINS QUALITY: Rand Sues Over Mislabeled Confectionary Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN P. RAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KILWINS QUALITY CONFECTIONS, INC., d/b/a
Kilwins, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01513 (N.D. Ill., March 18,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
several state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws in
the U.S.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its candy,
confectionary, and chocolate products. The Defendant allegedly
mislabeled and misbranded the products to materially overstate the
actual volume of, and the number of servings contained in, the
containers and packaging in which they are advertised and sold and
similarly materially understate the caloric content of a serving.
As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff and Class members have overpaid for the mislabeled
products when other substitute products, with the same or an
equivalent volume and the same quality chocolate, confectionary and
candy, are available at significantly lower prices, added the
suit.
Kilwins Quality Confections, Inc. is a confectionary manufacturer,
with its headquarters and principal place of business located at
1050 Bay View Road, Petoskey, Michigan. [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, IL 60601
Telephone: (608) 258-9588
Facsimile: (608) 259-9105
E-mail: rgoldlaw@aol.com
LA GRANJA: Lucius Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Consumers
---------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA GRANJA SERVICES CORP. d/b/a LA GRANJA
RESTAURANTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-21054-UU (S.D. Fla., March
18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website located at
https://lagranjarestaurants.com/en contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (1) images are not labeled so users cannot hear the content
shown onscreen, (2) lack of descriptive labels for language
selector links, and (3) absence of skip navigation on the website,
the suit adds.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
La Granja Services Corp., doing business as La Granja Restaurants,
is an owner and operator of Peruvian restaurants in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
LARKIN STREET: Jordan Hits Denied Breaks, Pay Stubs, Reimbursements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Femi Jordan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Larkin Street Youth Services and Does 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. CGC-21-589670 (Cal. Super.,
February 19, 2021), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory penalties for
failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties
in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
non-reimbursement of business-related expenses, and failure to
maintain time-keeping records. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.
Larkin Street Youth Services employed Jordan as hourly-paid or
non-exempt employee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on March 8 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos Holdings" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LDOS) from May 4, 2020 through February 23, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Leidos Holdings securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Leidos Holdings
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC published
a research report alleging that "Leidos is potentially covering up
at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355-367m of
international revenue." The report set forth additional allegations
that the Company was "concealing numerous product defects from
investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports
and borders."
On this news, Leidos Holdings' stock price fell $2.58 per share, or
2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021 on usually
high trading volume.
On February 23, 2021, Leidos Holding issued a press release
announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results.
The Company reported $89 million in revenue related to the SD&A
businesses for the fourth quarter, which meant that after two full
quarters, the acquisition only generate $163 million in sales,
falling short of projected $500 million sales. The Company expected
cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst estimates of $1.083
billion.
On this news, Leidos Holdings' stock price fell $10.29 per share,
or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.
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. Defendants failed to disclose:
(1) that the purported benefits of the Company's acquisition of
L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses were
significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos Holdings' products
suffered from numerous product defects, including fault explosive
detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (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.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 3, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Leidos Holdings securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/leidosholdingsinc-ldos-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-375/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
http://www.bernlieb.com[GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or "the Company") (NYSE:LDOS) for
for violations of Sections 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 4,
2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.
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. Leidos significantly overstated the
purported benefits of its acquisition of L3Harris' Security
Detection & Automation businesses. The Company's products suffered
from multiple defects, including faulty bomb detection systems
installed at critical infrastructure points including airports and
ports. The Company's financial results were significantly
overstated as a result. 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 Leidos,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
https://schallfirm.com/ [GN]
LIAT LTD: Former Pilots Join Class Action Over Compassionate Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Joseph at Barbados Today reports that ten terminated LIAT
pilots have strengthened numbers in their class-action suit against
the Antigua and Barbuda government in the face of a reported threat
by the prime minister to close the St John's-based company.
Six more former pilots came forward to add their names to the
constitutional motion filed in the High Court in St Johns by
Barbadian flyer Captain Neil Cave. They insisted that they won't be
bullied into backing down despite Prime Minister Gaston Browne's
pledge to end all support for LIAT if "pilots and those who
represent them" continue to frustrate his efforts to rescue the
collapsed carrier.
Brown told Antigua's Daily Observer that he could be forced to
hasten the airline's liquidation while distancing his government
from any liability that might arise.
"If this pilot and those he represents continue to frustrate our
Herculean efforts to salvage LIAT 1974 Ltd… it's unfortunate;
that despite our best efforts to salvage LIAT and our undertaking
to honour up to 50 per cent of the severance liability on a
compassionate basis; that this type of disruptive behaviour is
being pursued to undermine our efforts," Browne told the Antigua
media outlet which also quoted Barbados TODAY's story on the suit
published.
But Captain Cave told Barbados TODAY that the dismissed pilots have
a sound claim against the Browne administration and will be
pressing forward with their case.
Captain Cave said: "Browne is simply looking for a scapegoat
because of the situation in which he finds himself. He is trying to
use this litigation for which we have a valid claim, as a scapegoat
in talking about closing LIAT.
"I have had six calls from pilots this morning requesting to have
their names joined to that class action suit because they believe
in the merits of the suit."
In a letter on the eve of Browne's threat, Chairman of the
Cabinet's Sub-Committee on LIAT Lennox Weston told the airline's
Administrator Cleveland Seaforth that the St John's government was
leading an initiative among fellow regional shareholders to seek
and support coordination for workers for up to half of their
calculated terminal benefits by way of a compassionate fund.
The letter read: "Options for payment could include cash, land and
deferred bond payments. In order to further this initiative, we
request that you arrange to canvass the former workers and
representative unions to determine whether firstly: they would
agree to accept 50 per cent of workers' computed benefits as a
final payout via the compassionate fund and secondly: if they wish
to pursue other alternatives to advance their claim for
compensation."
Weston said it was essential the airline was reorganized.
"And unless this restructuring takes place and LIAT is returned to
a "going concern" status, the only realistic source of compensation
for former employees would be the residual amounts left, once the
legal procedure of winding up the company takes place," the Cabinet
Sub-Committee head cautioned.
He reminded the Administrator that no shareholder government had
any legal obligation to the company, beyond its limited liability
obligation.
"In this regard, a cursory look at LIAT's most recent statements
would lead any observer to the unmistakable conclusion that there
would be very little benefit, if any, to be derived by former
employees," Weston warned.
The constitutional motion against the government is challenging the
constitutionality of the recently amended Companies Act which
prohibits anyone from suing the Antigua and Barbuda government over
any claims against LIAT.
The claimants, who have named the Attorney General as the only
defendant, also want the court to order that they be awarded costs
and/or other relief the court may deem just.
The ex-pilots are also requesting that the court declares that
Section 564 (1) of the Companies (Amendment) Act No 17 of 2020, is
in contravention of Section 15 (8) of the Constitution of Antigua
and Barbuda by limiting the claimants' constitutional right to
access the court for a determination of their civil claim against
LIAT 1974 Limited which was filed in 2015 and was pending at the
time Parliament passed the law. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: RIDE) from August 3, 2020 through March 17, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Lordstown securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Lordstown Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company's purported
pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) 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 Lordstown's
Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to
commence production of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the
first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into
flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report on Lordstown entitled: "The
Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production
Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno." In this report, Hindenburg noted
that Lordstown has "no revenue and no sellable product," and wrote
that the Company "has misled investors on both its demand and
production capabilities." The Hindenburg 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 the Company being "on
track" for a September 2021 production start.
On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78.
This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market
capitalization.
Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call on which Lordstown CEO Stephen Burns disclosed
that Lordstown had received an inquiry from the SEC. Although
Lordstown also issued a press release and Form 8-K announcing its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results after trading
closed on March 17, 2021, the Company failed to disclose the
existence of the SEC inquiry in those filings. On this news, the
stock fell approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Lordstown securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/lordstownmotorscorp-ride-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-379/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: 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 Northern District
of Ohio on behalf of investors that purchased Lordstown Motors
Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) securities between August 3, 2020 and March
17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May
17, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
According to its website, Lordstown is an automotive company
founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty
electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. The Company's
purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an electric
full-size pickup truck.
On March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing
report on Lordstown entitled: "The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake
Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno."
In this report, Hindenburg noted that Lordstown has "no revenue and
no sellable product," and wrote that the Company "has misled
investors on both its demand and production capabilities." The
Hindenburg 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 the Company being "on track" for a September 2021
production start.
On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78.
This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market
capitalization.
Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call disclosing that Lordstown had received an inquiry
from the SEC. Remarkably, 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, the
Company failed to disclose the existence of the SEC inquiry in
those filings.
On this news, the stock fell approximately another 9% in
aftermarket trading.
The complaint, filed on March 18, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's purported pre-orders were
non-binding; (ii) 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 Lordstown's Endurance; (iii)
Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to commence production
of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the
Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10
minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased Lordstown Motors 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]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) securities between August 3, 2020
and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Lordstown
investors have until May 17, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3slHRPc to participate.
On March 12, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging
that Lordstown has "no revenue and no sellable product." Though the
Company has "consistently pointed to its book of 100,000 pre-orders
as proof of deep demand of its proposed EV truck," the report
alleged that these "orders are largely fictitious" and merely
formed a "marketing relationship" with no obligation to purchase
products.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.93, or 16.5%, to
close at $14.78 on March 12, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call disclosing that Lordstown had received an inquiry
from the Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC").
On this news, the stock fell approximately another 9% in
aftermarket trading.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
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
Lordstown's 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, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased Lordstown securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Lordstown securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Lordstown between August 3, 2020 and
March 17, 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) the Company'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
Lordstown's 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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Lordstown
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May
17, 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. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
RIDE) securities between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Lordstown investors have until May
17, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
f you suffered a loss on your Lordstown 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/lordstown-motors-corp/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On March 12, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging
that Lordstown has "no revenue and no sellable product." Though the
Company has "consistently pointed to its book of 100,000 pre-orders
as proof of deep demand of its proposed EV truck," the report
alleged that these "orders are largely fictitious" and merely
formed a "marketing relationship" with no obligation to purchase
products.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.93, or 16.5%, to
close at $14.78 on March 12, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call disclosing that Lordstown had received an inquiry
from the Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC").
On this news, the stock fell approximately another 9% in
aftermarket trading.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
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
Lordstown's 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, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown" or
"the Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) investors that acquired securities
between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that throughout the class period
Lordstown issued materially misleading and/or false statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lordstown's purported
pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many would-be customers who had
made these purported pre-orders did not have the means to make such
purchases and/or would not have credible demand for Lordstown's
Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and never has been "on track" to
commence production of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv)
Endurance's first test run resulted in the vehicle bursting into
flames within 10 minutes; and (v) Lordstown's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times as a
result.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against Lordstown Motors Corporation
("Lordstown" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown
common stock between October 26, 2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
If you purchased Lordstown common stock during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court no later than May 17, 2021. You may contact
David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at
Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment
of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may
also submit your information at
https://www.saxenawhite.com/lordstown-motors-corporation-class-action-lawsuit/.
Lordstown is an electric vehicle startup company. Founded in 2018,
Lordstown sought to become the first manufacturer of a full size,
all-electric pickup truck. The very next year, Lordstown acquired a
shuttered 6 million square-foot factory from General Motors in
Lordstown, Ohio that had once employed approximately 10,000 people.
Lordstown held itself out as a savior that promised to restore lost
jobs and transform this area of Ohio into the epicenter for
electric vehicle production, which the Company dubbed "Voltage
Valley."
In June 2020, the Company revealed its "Endurance" electric pickup
truck in a splashy ceremony that received national media attention.
During the event, Defendant Burns, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") heavily promoted the Endurance's growth prospects,
declaring that "we have our whole year, our first year of
production already pre-sold" and deliveries of the all-electric
truck would begin in "early 2021." Just two months later, Lordstown
announced that it had secured a remarkable $1.4 billion in
pre-orders.
In September 2020, only weeks before going public on the NASDAQ
through a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), the Company
declared that its book of pre-orders for Endurance had expanded
from 27,000 to 40,000. By January 2021, the Company's announced
pre-orders for Endurance had soared to 100,000, which Defendants
hailed as "unprecedented in automotive history" and put Lordstown
in a position to "revolutionize the pickup truck industry."
Defendants continued to tout the strong demand for Endurance and
the Company's growth prospects throughout the Class Period,
consistently pointing to Lordstown's purported book of 100,000
pre-orders for the Endurance and assuring investors that these
represented strong commercial demand from actual customers
operating fleets of trucks.
As alleged in the Class Action Complaint, these and similar
statements issued by Defendants during the Class Period were false
and misleading and omitted material facts. Specifically, as
Defendants knew but concealed and misrepresented to investors: (i)
the number of Endurance pre-orders were fabricated, and therefore
inflated, and thus did not accurately reflect demand; (ii)
Lordstown had fabricated the pre-orders in order to give
prospective investors a false sense of confidence; (iii) the
Company faced undisclosed production obstacles that would continue
to delay production and delivery of the Endurance; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Lordstown's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
The truth began to emerge on March 12, 2021, when the investigative
research and reporting firm Hindenburg Research issued a scathing
report concluding that Lordstown "is an electric vehicle SPAC with
no revenue and no sellable product" that "misled investors on both
its demand and production capabilities." The Hindenburg report
determined, after including "conversations with former employees,
business partners and an extensive document review" that
Lordstown's book of 100,000 pre-orders for its proposed EV truck
"are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and
confer legitimacy." In sharp contrast to Defendants' assurances
that deliveries of the Endurance would begin in "early 2021," the
Hindenburg Report estimated that the Endurance was in fact three to
four years away from production. On this news, Lordstown's share
price plummeted by nearly 17%.
On March 17, 2021, Lordstown disclosed that the Company was under
investigation by the SEC regarding the matters detailed in the
Hindenburg report. On this news, Lordstown's share price fell by
nearly 14%, closing at $13.01 per share on March 18, 2021,
representing a stunning 58% decline from its Class Period high.
The securities Class Action alleges that as a direct result of
Defendants' materially false and misleading statements during the
Class Period, and the sharp decline in the market value of the
Company's shares, investors in the Company's publicly traded shares
suffered significant losses and recoverable damages.
You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively
joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.
Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, Delaware, and
California, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, a preeminent national
shareholder rights law firm, announces that a federal securities
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) securities between August 3, 2020
and March 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Lordstown Motors Corp. 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 Lordstown Motors
Corp., you may, no later than May 17, 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 Lordstown Motors Corp.
Lordstown Motors Corp. plunged the most in five months after the
short-seller, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") said in a report
that "Lordstown is an electric vehicle SPAC with no revenue and no
sellable product, which we believe has misled investors on both its
demand and production capabilities." According to Hindenburg,
Lordstown "has consistently pointed to its book of 100,000
pre-orders as proof of deep demand for its proposed EV truck. Our
conversations with former employees, business partners and an
extensive document review show that the company's orders are
largely fictitious."
The Company's stock closed on March 12th at $14.78 per share, a
decline of over 16% from the prior day's close of $17.71 per
share.
Subsequently, on March 17, 2021, after the market had closed,
Lordstown held some earnings call on which the defendants disclosed
that Lordstown had received an inquiry from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") regarding accounting issues.
Following this disclosure, Lordstown's stock price fell $2.08 per
share on March 18, 2021, a decline of an additional 14%.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 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 investigation or have any questions
regarding your rights and interests in this matter, 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. [GN]
LOUISIANA: Plaisance's TRO Bid in Suit Over PUA Claims Delay Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA: Brooks' TRO Request in Suit Over PUA Claims Delay
Denied
In the case, BROOK PLAISANCE, ET AL. v. STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.,
Civil Action No. 21-00121-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.), Judge Brian A.
Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Immediate Temporary
Injunction Without Hearing, and Injunction After Hearing.
In March 2020, Congress passed the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance
("PUA") under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) ("CARES Act") in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 9021 of the CARES Act
created a new temporary federal program called PUA, which generally
provides up to 39 weeks of unemployment benefits to certain
individuals who lost work or are unable to work due to a variety of
complications stemming from the COVID-19 public health emergency.
The CARES Act provides that payments to those eligible under this
section will be made "without any waiting period."
Over the last year, the Louisiana Workforce Commission has
experienced well-documented delays in the administration of PUA
benefits.
On Feb. 25, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that they are among those Louisianans whose PUA
benefits have been delayed (or not paid at all), and further
alleging that these delays have resulted in violations of
procedural due process, unconstitutional takings, and violations of
Section 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. The Plaintiffs'
complaint names four Defendants: the State of Louisiana; Governor
John Bel Edwards, in his official capacity as Governor of the State
of Louisiana; the Commission; and Secretary Ava Dejoie, in her
official capacity as Secretary of the Commission.
On May 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion, seeking an
immediate temporary restraining order, without notice, "ordering
the Defendants to refrain from any further delays" in processing
PUA benefits determinations, rectifying incorrect classifications
of claims, and paying compensation to claimants.
The Plaintiffs further request an immediate order directing
Defendants to identify all claims on file with the Commission, for
which: (1) a final benefits determination has not been made; (2) a
claimant has received an adverse determination, but has been
prevented from appealing due to any error in the Commission's
system of administration; (3) an overpayment determination has been
made by the Commission, at any time since Nov. 1, 2020, on the
basis of a claimant's ineligibility for PUA benefits, and; (4) an
overpayment determination has been made since Nov. 1, 2020 on the
basis of a claimant's ineligibility for regular unemployment
benefits.
The Plaintiffs further request, after hearing and due course,
issuance of a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the
same relief.
As an initial matter, Judge Jackson cannot conclude on the present
showing that the Plaintiffs will suffer immediate and irreparable
injury in the absence of a TRO. Certainly, he is sympathetic to
their claims. Still, however, financial harms such as those
alleged are generally not irreparable because they can be addressed
by monetary damages. The Plaintiffs allege ongoing "economic
distress," but have not set forth specific evidence establishing
that monetary damages are inadequate, or that an immediate
injunction is necessary to forestall additional harms that may
occur before Defendants are provided the opportunity to respond to
their claims.
Additionally, the Judge cannot conclude on the present showing that
the Plaintiffs are bound to succeed on the merits of their claims,
at least in this forum. Notably, the Plaintiffs seek relief from
the State of Louisiana and the Commission, thus implicating two
interrelated jurisdictional issues -- Eleventh Amendment sovereign
immunity and what entities constitute suable "persons" under
Section 1983 -- which may affect the Court's ability to adjudicate
the merits of this dispute.
Finally, more is required of the Plaintiffs in order to show that
the public interest favors immediate injunctive relief, Judge
Jackson holds. The injunction the Plaintiffs seek would, in
effect, require Defendants to take positive action to process PUA
benefits and make payments faster, thus going "well beyond simply
maintaining the status quo pendente lite." Such relief "is
particularly disfavored, and should not be issued unless the facts
and law clearly favor the moving party." Further, "intrusion of
federal courts into state agencies should extend no further than
necessary to protect the federal rights of the parties." The Judge
concludes that additional briefing, evidence, and argument is
required to ensure that the "intrusion" the Plaintiffs seek is not
overbroad.
Accordingly, Judge Jackson denied the Plaintiffs' request for a
TRO. The Defendants will file their response(s), if any, to the
Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction no later than
March 26, 2021. An evidentiary hearing on the Plaintiffs' request
for a preliminary injunction will occur on April 6, 2021, at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom 2.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3hvs9mu7 from Leagle.com.
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Landowners File Lawsuit Over Abandoned Pipes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary B. Powers, writing for Engineering News Report, reports that
an Oklahoma landowner's petition filed in a state court to have a
shut down 1,100-mile ammonia pipeline that runs from Texas to
Minnesota deemed abandoned and removed by its owner Magellan
Midstream Partners, was moved to federal court for approval as a
class action on Feb. 24.
The 8-in pipeline that is about 45 years old was built to carry
hazardous materials including ammonia under easements from
landowners. Cost to remove it has not been determined, but it would
meet the minimum $5 million requirement to be a class action
lawsuit.
Magellan claims the structure is permitted and lawful and the
company has no obligation to remove it.
According to the petition, the defendants, which also include
Magellan Ammonia Pipeline, had filed documents in 2019 with the
U.S. Dept. of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration saying they had abandoned the pipeline and
filled it with "salt water, or inert gas and that it has been
permanently disconnected and sealed." The peition adds that
"Magellan has now abandoned the entire NH3 system from Texas to
Minnesota."
Magellan started decommissioning the pipeline during the fourth
quarter of 2019, citing low margins, high operating costs and
potentially lower ammonia supplies. The company considered
repurposing the pipeline, but costs associated with the maintenance
were infeasible, CEO Michael Mears said at the time.
Abandonment of the pipeline also abandons the easements across the
properties of landowners in the proposed class action across the
five states, the petition contends.
"The defendants no longer have any right to travel or enter the
property to store, maintain or leave equipment, outbuildings,
signage or pipeline on the landowners' property," the petition
says. Their continued use of the property and failure to remove the
pipeline interferes with the landowners' rights and interests, they
say.
Magellan said on March 3 that the easement and right of way were
granted "forever" in 1976 by the previous landowner and are binding
to successor owners.
The easement is "silent on removal," the company said in a document
filed in federal court in Oklahoma, adding that any loss of value
to the property occurred at the time of the pipeline's
construction. The previous owner was paid $10 for every 16.5 feet
of pipeline, but the length of the pipeline was not disclosed.
The Oklahoma landowner on behalf of the proposed class seeks actual
damages—including the cost to remove the pipeline and remediate
the land including placement of fill dirt, as well as the decrease
in value of the property and fair market value based on its use for
storage of the abandoned pipeline and related property. [GN]
MARDI GRAS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Ringo Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH RINGO, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated who consent to representation, Plaintiff v. MARDI GRAS
MANAGEMENT, INC. d/b/a MARDI GRAS ATLANTA, a Georgia Corporation,
MICHAEL W. FULTON, an individual, and RICK PEFFER, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00995-WMR (N.D. Ga., March 10, 2021)
is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has started working with the Defendants in 2016 as a
dancer until the Defendants closed in March 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not pay her and other
similarly situated dancers any wages or compensation whatsoever
throughout their employment with the Defendant. Their sole form of
remuneration was the receipt of tips from the Defendants'
customers. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay them the
federally required minimum wage and overtime wages at one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked
over 40 in a given workweek. Moreover, instead of paying them any
wages, the Defendants required them to pay kickbacks or fees
including a $40 shift fee; a "tip out fee" at the end of each shift
of $10-$15 to the manager on duty; a $20 fee to the DJ; and a fee
each time a dancer used the VIP rooms with a customer, the suit
says.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and those similarly
situated who consent to representation seek damages in the amount
of their respective unpaid minimum wage, the amount of the
Plaintiff's paid kickbacks or fees, liquidated damages as provided
under the FLSA, interest, and other legal and equitable relief as
the Court deems proper.
Mardi Gras Management, Inc. d/b/a Mardi Gras Atlanta operates an
adult entertainment nightclub. The Individual Defendants are owners
and managers of Defendant Mardi Gras. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
Post Office Box 1070
Tucker, GA 30085-10170
Tel: (404) 313-5538
E-mail: kmartin@martinandmartinlaw.com
tfmartin@martinandmartinlaw.com
MARTIN SHKRELI: Blue Cross and Blue Shield Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Minnesota have filed a class action lawsuit
against Martin Shkreli, the infamous former drug executive better
known as "Pharma bro."
According to The Star Tribune, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Minnesota have alleged that Shkreli and other defendants --
including his old company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, and its
successor, Vyera Pharmaceuticals, LLC -- conspired to drastically
increase the price of the life-saving drug Daraprim, which is used
to treat a serious form of parasitic infection.
Daraprim is also used to prevent respiratory complications and
disease in people with HIV/AIDS.
Shkreli, notes the Star Tribune, attracted national ire for
smirking his way through a congressional hearing in which
legislators questioned his company's business practices --
practices which included artificially inflating the price of
Daraprim by more than 4,000%.
Despite a lack of competition, Shkreli and his cohorts allegedly
worked to increase the price of a single tablet of Daraprim from
$13.50 per dose to $750—making an average treatment cost upwards
of $75,000, not accounting for medical administration costs and
physician fees.
While Shkreli was never held accountable for his company's moral
misconduct, he was later sentenced to prison for seven years in an
unrelated securities case.
However, the claims in Blue Cross and Blue Shield's class action
echo the accusations of Congress.
In their suit, Blue Cross and Blue Shield states that Vyera engaged
in anti-competitive practices by preventing rival drug companies
from acquiring the samples and ingredients needed to produce more
affordable alternatives to Shkreli's Daraprim.
Dr. Craig Samitt, the chief executive of Blue Cross of Minnesota,
said the pharmaceutical industry must be held accountable for its
role in making certain drugs prohibitively expensive.
"Drug companies need to be held accountable for their role in
making sure health care costs are sustainable for all," Samitt
said.
The lawsuit explains, in basic terms, how Shkreli and Vyera worked
to prevent affordable alternatives to Daraprim from threatening
their profits.
"Because Daraprim lacked patent and regulatory protections,
defendants understood that such an astronomical price increase
would cause competitors to develop generic versions of Daraprim and
sell them at lower prices," the lawsuit states.
"To prevent this, and to make their planned price increase
commercially viable, defendants executed a scheme to thwart generic
competition and force Daraprim purchasers to pay grossly inflated
prices," the suit says," all while concealing and misleading the
public about their anti-competitive conduct."
While Shkreli has been behind bars for years, Blue Cross of
Minnesota alleges that while incarcerated, "defendant Shkreli has
continued to direct Defendants' operations, communicating with
Vyera executives and Phoenixus's board of directors [. . .] via a
contraband cellphone and e-mail and telephone services managed by
the Bureau of Prisons."
Shkreli had petitioned to be released from prison early due to
coronavirus-related health concerns, but his appeal was denied by a
federal judge who found that the "Pharma bro's" claims lacked
merit. [GN]
MDL 2323: Atty. Lien Dispute in NFL Concussion Injury Suit Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. National
Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-interest to
NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Goldberg
Persky & White, P.C. v. SPID 100002255 (B.B.) Attorney Lien Dispute
Case Mo. 00588, Case No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323 (E.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants in part Goldberg
Persky & White, P.C.'s motion for reimbursement of its costs and
payment of attorneys' fees.
Presently before the Court in the National Football League Player's
Concussion Injury Litigation is the assertion of an Attorney Lien
by GPW against the Award granted to their former client, Settlement
Class Member B.B. ("Player"), in the litigation that became part of
the class action, In re: National Football League Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 12-md-2323 (E.D. Pa.). By its
lien, GPW seeks reimbursement of its costs and payment of
attorneys' fees of as much as 22% of the Award that has been
authorized for the Player.
By his current counsel, Neurocognitive Football Lawyers, PLLC
("NCFL"), the Player challenges the Lien given that NCFL also seeks
a contingent fee for its work in representing him. That work,
which the Player agreed would be compensated with a contingent fee
of 25% of any monetary award he received, involved NCFL eliciting
expert reports documenting his impairment, which ultimately
resulted in approval of the sought-after monetary award.
NCFL contends that only a small portion of the counsel fee should
be allocated to GPW in that Player terminated GPW "before the
Amended Settlement Agreement was approved and before the
contingency on the Player's individual claim arose. While the
Player recognizes that GPW provided some support to him (along with
GPW's other clients) earlier in the litigation, he argues, through
NCFL, that the work his current firm performed provided the far
more significant contribution in bringing his claim to a successful
conclusion.
The parties consented that Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's ruling on
the matter should represent the final determination of the district
court. As it set out in past opinions, the Court's evaluation of
these positions involves a consideration of the contingent fee
agreements ("CFAs") between the Player and his counsel and an
assessment of the reasonableness of the requested fees of both law
firms in light of the analysis set out by the Third Circuit's
McKenzie decision -- McKenzie Constr., Inc. v. Maynard, 758 F.2d
97, 100 (3d Cir. 1985) and McKenzie Constr., Inc. v. Maynard, 823
F.2d 43, 45 (3d Cir. 1987).
This approach obligates Magistrate Judge Strawbridge to scrutinize
the reasonableness of the CFA at the time of the signing and then
determine whether the circumstances compel a different evaluation
of the agreement at the time the lienholder seeks enforcement. He
then examines the results the Player obtained, the quality of the
representation provided by each firm, and most importantly the
extent to which the efforts of the lienholder firm substantially
contributed to the result obtained while the client was represented
by current counsel. Ultimately, he concludes that both firms are
entitled to recoup attorney's fees, with the larger portion
allocated to NCFL for its active development of the medical record
and presentation of the claim that led to the award.
Magistrate Judge Strawbridge holds that GPW's contribution as an
IRPA from 2011-2016 to the success that the Player achieved with
his Monetary Award issued in 2020 is insufficient to support the
attorney fee of 22% it seeks. Much of the benefit that inured to
the Player during that period flowed from the work of the class
counsel. Once approval of the settlement appeared more secure, the
work required of the counsel principally revolved around claim
development and submission. NCFL's representation at those stages
provided the more significant contribution in ensuring that the
Player would qualify for the best possible award.
Magistrate Judge Strawbridge concludes that a fair resolution of
the dispute is to award 22% of the Monetary Award for IRPA
attorneys' fees to be apportioned between GPW and NCFL as follows:
8% to GPW and 14% to NCFL. These amounts must be reduced by the
Common Benefit Fee deduction currently applicable to all Awards.
The Claims Administrator will apportion the holdback funds between
GPW and NCFL in the proportion set forth above.
Magistrate Judge Strawbridge also approves payment to NCFL of the
$5,150 it incurred in costs. The balance of withheld funds (for
attorney costs initially asserted by GPW and NCFL but subsequently
waived) are to be released to the Player.
An appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5s6vv2fm from Leagle.com.
MICHIGAN: Fishing License Class Action Against DNR Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Nunn, writing for Manistee News Update, reports that the
owners of Bay Port Fish Company along with a dozen other active
commercial fisheries in the state could breath a sigh of relief
Feb. 11 when they received a revised fisheries order from the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, which effectively
restored the 2021 fishing season.
According to Bay Port Fish Company Co-Owner Lakon Williams, the
business received the fisheries order update Feb. 11.
The fisheries order restored previous fishing restrictions such as
net fishing depths of 150 feet in lakes Huron, Michigan and
Superior, harvest of whitefish in Lake Erie, and restoration of the
previous fishing season to name a few.
"Had they not made the changes, it would have been absolutely
detrimental, not only to the state's licensed commercial fisherman
but also the restaurant industry in Michigan that depends heavily
on local whitefish during the tourism season," Williams said. "They
would have probably had to buy and import Canadian whitefish."
Williams said after receiving and confirming the revised order she
was relieved to be able to reach out to her customers -- many of
which are restaurants that had already battled mandated closures
for the past year -- and inform them that they would again have
whitefish available.
"It was great," she said. "I know the Farm Restaurant was happy to
hear. I think our accounts will even appreciate the fish more this
season."
In January, the Michigan Fish Producers Association filed a class
action lawsuit against the DNR and some of its leadership for
neglecting to renew the fishing licenses of the state's commercial
fisheries.
The MFPA has been in a battle with the DNR regarding a trifecta of
tie-barred House Bills first introduced during the 2019 legislative
session, which were approved in the House in early 2020, were
referred to the Michigan Senate Committee on Natural Resources. The
bills received overwhelming support from the DNR, along with the
Michigan Steelhead and Salmon Fishermen's Association, Michigan
Trout Unlimited, and Michigan United Conservation Clubs. The only
opposing testimonial on the bills was provided by the Michigan Fish
Producers Association.
The lawsuit claims that the DNR and co-defendants DNR Director
Daniel Eichinger and Fisheries Chief James Dexter, refused to
approve any commercial licenses and permits until there is an
amendment to Michigan Compiled Laws 324.47301.
A letter emailed to state-licensed commercial fishers from Dexter
said the department received inquiries requesting clarification on
Fisheries Order 243.21 and the letter was sent to address it.
According to the letter sent Dec. 8, 2020, "unless the commercial
fishing legislation is passed this year, the department will not be
able to enact provisions that were previously within the commercial
fishing order that benefited your operations in recent years."
The letter provided a breakdown on the provisions that were
removed, which included closing the Lake Huron fishing season an
extra month, restricting the depth of nets to 80 feet of water and
imposing other limits as well.
According to the letter, if the tie-barred bills were not passed,
the DNR would remove the provisions which would impact the
commercial fisheries.
After the bills reached the Senate, they were pushed to a
committee, and recommendations returned from the committee after
several months due to the coronavirus. However, Williams said
Eichinger stated the department did not have time to review the
recommendations.
As a result, the Senate never voted on the bills during the last
legislative session, which means new bills will need to be
introduced.
After the bills had failed, the DNR previously updated the
fisheries order to impose several restrictions which Williams said
effectively ended their 2021 season.
On Jan. 19 four legislators -- Sen. Dan Lauwers, Sen. Kevin Daley,
Sen. Curt VanderWall, and Rep. Phil Green -- sent a joint letter to
Eichinger in support of the commercial fisheries and condemning the
actions of the DNR that resulted in the suit.
A letter drafted by the legislators said the commercial fishing
laws and rules are in great need of updating, but it is not at the
fault of the commercial fishing industry, and in the meantime the
department should maintain last year's rules status quo.
Williams said the MFPA and Bay Port Fish Company received
overwhelming support in the battle.
"I think there were multiple industries that spoke up at once," she
said. "We wouldn't be here without that support, plain and simple.
If the community didn't want us here we wouldn't make it. We are so
grateful for our legislators for standing up for us and the
community."
Williams said although the order restored the company's fishing
season, it is only a small part of the battle that yet lies ahead.
"They have changed it already twice this year, so they could always
change it again," she said. "We are hoping it is the end of this
battle, so to speak."
"I am weary of the legislative battle we have ahead of us this
year," she continued. "We won a small battle but there is more to
come. We need to have some compromise with the DNR."
Williams said she does not yet know if the MFPA is going to proceed
on its lawsuit.
"For me, for our company, this settled the main issues in the
lawsuit but I can't speak for the other fisherman," she said. "We
haven't had a meeting and we make decisions as a group. We will
meet and discuss what is our next step."
Williams said she is humbled by the support she has received from
the community and she is relieved to look forward to the fishing
season again.
"I will never take that for granted," she said. "The support we
have from the community is absolutely invaluable."
Bay Port Fish Company is scheduled to open its doors for the season
April 1. However, Williams said the business opens earlier if fish
are available.
"As soon as the ice floats out of Saginaw Bay our season will
start," she said. "Usually if we are lucky we can get nets set by
late March and have fresh whitefish by April 1." [GN]
MID-ATLANTIC ENGINEERING: Miller Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MILLER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MID-ATLANTIC ENGINEERING-QA/QC INSPECTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00318 (D. Conn., March 10, 2021) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant
to recover unpaid overtime and other damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in August 2018 to perform
as an environment, health, and safety (EHS) employee at the
Defendant's Bridgeport Harbor Station power plant in Bridgeport,
Connecticut and ended his employment in June 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that although he and other similarly situated
employees regularly worked over 40 hours in a week, the Defendant
paid them at the same hourly rate for all hours they worked. The
Defendant willfully failed to pay them their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance
with the law, the suit says.
Mid-Atlantic Engineering-QA/QC Inspections, LLC provides quality
assurance and quality control employees to construction and power
industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA & DINSMORE, LLC
750 Main Street, Suite 904
Hartford, CT 06103
Tel: (860) 522-8888
Fax: (860) 218-9555
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MINDGEEK USA: Sued for Child Sex Trafficking
--------------------------------------------
Jane Doe on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Mindgeek USA Incorporated, Mindgeek S.A.R.L., MG
Freesites, Ltd. (d/b/a Pornhub), MG Freesites II, Ltd., MG Content
RT Limited, and 9219-1568 Quebec, Inc. (d/b/a Mindgeek),
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00338, (C.D. Cal. February 19, 2021),
seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act.
The MG Group operates "Pornhub." It is a wholly owned subsidiary of
MindGeek S.A.R.L. which also owns MindGeek USA Inc. These
defendants constitute a series of privately held companies that
operate many popular pornographic websites, including, among
others, Pornhub, RedTube and YouPorn. Defendants also operate many
adult film production companies, including Brazzers, Digital
Playground, Men.com, Reality Kings, Sean Cody, and WhyNotBi.com.
Jane Doe claims to be a victim of child sex trafficking and child
pornography. She was in high school when her boyfriend created four
videos of the two of them engaging in sexual intercourse. She was
sixteen years old at the time the videos were recorded, and some of
the videos were recorded without her knowledge let alone consent.
After the relationship ended, her boyfriend posted these videos
online on various websites, including Pornhub.com, from the period
of December 2019 to the present. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Davida Brook, Esq.
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Arun Subramanian, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
- and -
Steve Cohen, Esq.
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
60 Broad Street, 24th Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 337-5361
Email: scohen@pollockcohen.com
MINNEAPOLIS, MN: Class Action on Behalf of Journalists Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Hutchinson, writing for ABC News, reports that fortified
fencing, barbed wire and concrete barricades have gone up around
the courthouse and police stations in Minneapolis in preparation
for the landmark murder trial of former police officer Derek
Chauvin for the death of George Floyd.
But what may seem like necessary preparations for unrest that could
accompany the trial, in a city still recovering from the violence
and destruction that erupted there last summer after Floyd's death,
to others is a frustrating sign that government officials don't
understand the source of tensions between police and community in
the first place -- aggressive police posture.
Kandace Montgomery, a local community activist who helped organize
protests over the killing of Floyd, said seeing taxpayer money
allocated to ramping up security measures for a police department
that she has supported defunding has been unsettling.
"As the people of Minneapolis and Minnesota are calling for justice
and healing, and care, state officials have been responding in some
ways by basically preparing to go to war with folks," the
30-year-old Montgomery, director of the non-profit activist group
Black Visions Collective, told ABC News. "So, I do think it's meant
to be an intimidation tactic."
Chauvin's trial was set to begin on March 8 with jury selection,
but city officials said they have been preparing for the event for
seven months. Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo and other
state and city government leaders have unveiled a multi-pronged
plan to avoid a repeat of the widespread destruction that occurred
when violence erupted during protests in the city in the immediate
aftermath of Floyd's May 25 death.
Police conduct and interactions with protesters have been a subject
of intense scrutiny for months, since an estimated 15 million to 26
million people took to streets nationwide over the summer to
protest Floyd's death, which was captured in agonizing detail on
bystander video. Violence erupted in a number of cities, including
Minneapolis, with images of burning buildings, vandalism and
looting, overshadowing the overwhelmingly peaceful protests against
police brutality.
Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Binder pointed out during a
briefing by officials on security planning that city leaders
haven't, to her satisfaction, adequately acknowledged during
preparations the "pain and suffering" the city has endured over the
"horrific way" Floyd died. She alleged that "law enforcement
escalated" last summer's violence and "created the conditions for
folks to come from outside our community to cause more harm."
"I still think too many city leaders, despite all of this, dismiss
the work to create a different system of safety as childish or
silly, that too many city leaders think that the most grownup
response to a problem is always with force and always to begin by
sending people with guns, and I just don't agree," Binder said. "I
don't think that we can police ourselves out of police violence."
Arradondo said the plan, called "Operation Safety Net," will be
guided by two core principles during Chauvin's trial, which is
scheduled to last two months: prevention of crime and damage to
property, as well as ensuring First Amendment rights for those who
wish to peacefully assemble and demonstrate.
'Referendum' on police killing Black people
Ben Crump, an attorney who represents the Floyd family, noted that
despite flashes of violence and destruction in some cities
nationwide, the majority of the protests over Floyd's death were
peaceful. A report produced by the U.S. Crisis Project, a joint
effort by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project and the
Bridging Divides Initiative at Princeton University, showed 95% of
10,600 Black Lives Matter protests that occurred between Floyd's
death and Aug. 22 were peaceful.
Crump described Floyd's relatives as being "very anxious" about the
trial and hopeful that justice will prevail without the occurrence
of violence.
"One thing I will say is this is an important case and it is our
expectation that (former) officer Derek Chauvin will be convicted
for torturing George Floyd to death," Crump said. "This will be a
referendum on whether police are held accountable for killing Black
people in America in 2021."
With some buildings boarded up and others reduced to rubble,
Minneapolis government leaders say their city is still recovering
from the 5% of the protests that turned violent and that the
precautions being taken are justified. City officials told ABC News
that an estimate on the cost of damages from the unrest is $250
million to $350 million, based on a property reassessment the City
Assessor's Office conducted this past summer and data on estimated
insurance losses from the Minnesota Department of Commerce.
And Minneapolis wasn't the only city left picking up the pieces.
Verisk Property Claims Service -- an internationally recognized
authority on insured property losses from catastrophes in the
United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands -- issued a
report in November estimating cumulative insured losses from civil
unrest in the United States in 2020 topped $2 billion, making it
the costliest year for civil unrest losses since PCS record-keeping
began.
The second-costliest U.S. civil disorder, according to PCS, was the
$775 million in insured losses that occurred from April 29 through
May 4, 1992, in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted LAPD officers
for using excessive force in the arrest and videotaped beating of
Rodney King.
Following Floyd's death and the release of the video, protests
broke out in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., prompting curfews
in Minneapolis and at least 80 localities throughout the nation and
more than 75,000 National Guard Troops to be activated in 31 states
and the District of Columbia. More than 10,000 people were
arrested, according to a tally by the Associated Press.
U.S. police departments in several large cities where destructive
behavior last summer overshadowed peaceful protests -- including
Oakland, California, Portland, Oregon, Seattle and New York City --
all told ABC News they are closely monitoring the trial and have
plans in place in case demonstrations get out of control during the
legal proceedings. But like in Minneapolis, officials in those
cities said they have received no reports of imminent, credible
threats.
"The NYPD is highly experienced in facilitating lawful protests,"
Sgt. Jessica McRorie, a spokesperson for the New York Police
Department, said in a statement to ABC News. "We will work through
our Community Affairs Bureau to liaison with any protest organizers
and have officers on-hand to ensure the rights and safety of
peaceful protesters and other New Yorkers."
In addition to securing the perimeters of the Hennepin County
Courthouse where the Chauvin trial is taking place and Minneapolis
police stations, up to 2,000 National Guard troops, according to
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and other city officials, will be
deployed to the city by the time a verdict in the trial is
rendered, mostly to escort firefighters and ambulances on emergency
calls. Other law enforcement agencies, including state and transit
police, as well as the FBI, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the Minnesota Division of
Homeland Security and Emergency Management are providing mutual aid
to help keep a lid on tensions.
Arradondo said demonstrations will be allowed to occur "free of
intimidation or threats," but restricted to designated areas near
the courthouse.
Besides beefing up patrols around the courthouse and the Hennepin
County Government Center, which will be closed for the duration of
the trial, the Hennepin County Sheriff Office will provide
intelligence gathering by monitoring social media to keep track of
what organized groups are doing and to glean information in hopes
of heading off violent acts in the works.
"I'm a firm believer that you can never over-communicate in matters
such as this that impacts our city," Arradondo said.
'Juggling a lot of issues'
Robert Boyce, the retired chief of detectives for the New York
Police Department and an ABC News contributor, said communication
with the public, especially the peaceful protesters, will be key to
success in Minneapolis.
"You want to control as much as you can, which is hard to do in
these high-profile cases where so much emotion is going on," Boyce
said. "People want to be there, people want to make their
statements, people want to see the press, the press has to be there
as well. So, you're really juggling a lot of issues here and you're
hoping that everybody acts the way they're supposed to act so
everybody can get their message across and the press can do their
job."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota filed a federal
class-action lawsuit in June on behalf of journalists alleging law
enforcement officers targeted them with unnecessary force during
the demonstrations in Minneapolis over Floyd's death. The
defendants named in the lawsuit -- the city of Minneapolis and
leaders of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety and the
Minnesota State Patrol -- responded with a motion to dismiss the
suit, arguing qualified immunity protects them from any liability
for claims of excessive force.
A spokesperson for ACLU Minnesota told ABC News that the outcome of
the lawsuit is still pending with no significant updates at this
time.
Asked whether law enforcement can risk going overboard on security,
Boyce said, "I think a strong optic is important to know what you
can and can't get away with."
"Coordination, constant talking, collaboration among the agencies
is vital. Understanding that you have to take a look at social
media platforms as well as scheduled issues, protests where they're
near and how they can evolve into something worse," Boyce said.
But Montgomery said that her organization, founded in 2017 to focus
on Black liberation, has been mostly left out of the security-prep
loop other than receiving information about the city's plans from
community groups they have formed coalitions with.
"But it's not an including, it's a heads up, like, 'Hey, heads-up
we're sending some hyper-militarized equipment to your local
neighborhood.' It's not asking for folks' opinions," said
Montgomery, adding that her group plans to support several events
being organized by Floyd's family during the trial.
Chauvin is charged with second-degree murder and second-degree
manslaughter after kneeling on Floyd's neck for a prolonged period
of time. The Minnesota State Court of Appeals issued a ruling on
March 4 asking the trial court judge to reconsider reinstating a
third-degree murder charge against the 44-year-old, who is being
tried separately from three other former officers involved in
Floyd's death. J. Alexander Kueng, Thomas Lane and Tou Thao are
charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and
manslaughter and are scheduled to go on trial in August.
All four defendants have entered not guilty pleas to the charges.
The potential chilling effect of high security
Joseph H. Low IV, a Los Angeles criminal defense and civil trial
lawyer, told ABC News, that whether right or wrong, Chauvin
represents the face of "the entire legal community" and that the
tactics and training of U.S. law enforcement will take center stage
at the trial.
"Now clearly there's an exception to the rule and they would say,
'that's not fair, one bad cop doesn't mean we're all bad, of
course.' But let's not be silly and pretend there's only one bad
cop," Low said.
He said the ramped-up security in Minneapolis could have a chilling
effect on the potential jury pool.
"That can cause some fear and some uncertainty," Low said. "This is
not making them feel any calmer. So that will be something that a
specialist who picks and selects juries will be aware of."
Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith, a spokesperson for the nonprofit
National Police Association and a law enforcement trainer for more
than 20 years, said Minneapolis officials have little choice but to
pull out all the stops in terms of security.
"They have an obligation to protect the players in the trial, all
people on both sides, and an obligation to protect the building,"
Smith told ABC News. "The thing is we've got to go back now to May
25 of 2020 and look at what happened when the (Minneapolis Police)
Department was somewhat unprepared and did hold back on arresting
people."
Smith bristled at Chauvin being described as the face of law
enforcement or that his trial is somehow a "referendum" on the
entire profession, calling such statements "inflammatory."
"Our justice system, which is still intact in the United States, is
based on individual behavior and then treatment of that person as
an individual," Smith said. "There's no one police officer out
there that represents all of us. We are individuals as part of a
profession."
ABC News' Whitney Lloyd contributed to this report. [GN]
MONKEY SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Calcano Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONKEY SPORTS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02061 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires scree-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
https://www.monkeysports.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired
people. The Plaintiff has encountered multiple access barriers when
he visited the Defendant's website, the last occurring in August
2020, in an attempt to purchase a product. These access barriers
denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a
sighted person and full and equal access to the Defendant's goods
and services offered to the public, the suit says.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, which would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website.
Monkey Sports, LLC operates an online retail store that sells
sports apparel items as well as memorabilia, accessories and other
products through its website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: 212-228-9795
Fax: 212-982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
MONTARA WELLHEAD: Indonesian Seaweed Farmers Win Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
sbs.com.au reports that the company behind one of Australia's
largest oil spills has been found liable for damaging the
livelihoods of thousands of Indonesian seaweed farmers.
The Federal Court ruled the operator of the Montara Wellhead
Platform, about 700 kilometres west of Darwin, breached its duty of
care to the farmers after untested, deficient barriers were used to
cap its H1 Well in 2009.
Oil and gas spilled uncontrollably from the well into the Timor Sea
for 74 days, damaging seaweed farms off Timor and an island further
south.
Class action lead applicant Daniel Sanda, who lived on about $2,000
a year before taking up seaweed farming on Rote Island, had
calculated the oil spill cost him 739 million Indonesian rupiah
($A67,000) in profits over six years.
"I am satisfied that this oil caused or materially contributed to
the death and loss of (Mr Sanda's) crop," Justice David Yates
said.
"I am satisfied that, although difficult to assess, and although
attended with uncertainty, the applicant's loss can be calculated,
and that he is entitled to an award of damages."
The oil company, PTTEP Australasia, accepted it was negligent in
suspending and operating the well but contended it didn't owe a
duty of care to the farmers.
Even if that duty of care was owed and breached, it said there
wasn't any evidence the oil reached the areas, let alone that oil
was in a form that would be toxic to the seaweed crops.
It told Australian Maritime Safety Authority in August 2009 that
about 200 to 400 barrels of oil was spilling per day, revising that
to the higher figure at trial.
But Justice Yates found the rate was 920 barrels per day "as a
minimum" and was likely being discharged at an uncontrolled rate
exceeding 2,500 barrels per day.
PTTEP had shown in its oil spill contingency plan that it was
concerned as to whether oil spilled at the H1 Well could reach
shorelines in Australia, Timor and Indonesia and harm the marine
ecosystems there, he said.
While the modelling showed no impacts, it was not dealing with an
uncontrolled well blowout arising from a failure to properly
suspend the well, the judge said.
"The possibility of impacts to those shorelines and harm to the
marine ecosystem carried with it the possibility of harm to those
businesses or enterprises that depended on the commercial
exploitation of that ecosystem, including in relation to seaweed,"
the judge said.
"I am satisfied, therefore, that the foreseeability of that risk of
harm arising from the respondent's actual acts or omissions is
established and that the respondent breached its duty of care to
the applicant and the Group Members.
"No other consideration has been raised which militates against a
finding of breach."
Justice Yates ruled Mr Sanda should be awarded 253 million
Indonesian rupiah, having applied a discount of 40 per cent due to
uncertainty in Mr Sanda's exact income and found that no income
loss occurred in 2013.
The question of whether interest is paid on that figure will be
answered at a later date.
What compensation other seaweed farmers receive will also be
decided at a later time.
PTTEP said it was disappointed in the outcome and emphasised group
members' claims must be determined separately.
"PTTEP is carefully considering the judgment and the available
avenues of appeal," a spokesman said. [GN]
MOWI ASA: Agrees to Pay $1.3MM to settle US Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Sapin and Drew Cherry at intrafish.com reports that Salmon
farming giant Mowi has agreed to pay $1.3 million (1 million) to
settle a class action suit filed by a New York-based catering
company alleging the company deceptively marketed its Ducktrap
brand smoked salmon as "sustainable" and "eco-friendly."
The parties reached an agreement in February, according to
documents filed with a New York court. With funds from that $1.3
million settlement, Mowi also agreed not to oppose "Class
Representative Service Awards" of $7,500 (6,298 euros) to Neversink
General Store and up to $1,500 (1,260 euros) to fellow plaintiff
Brenda Tomlinson to "compensate them for the actions they took in
their capacities as class representatives" in the case.
Mowi also agreed to pay the settlement class attorney's fees and
costs awarded by the court up to a maximum of $360,000 (301,000
euros).
"After several rounds of hard-fought, arm's-length negotiations,
the Parties reached a fair, adequate, and reasonable Settlement,"
details provided in court documents state.
The judge still has to approve the settlement for it to be
finalized.
The lawsuit, filed with a US District Court in the Southern
District of New York in November, includes allegations similar to a
lawsuit filed earlier this year by a nonprofit consumer group over
Mowi's smoked salmon products sold under its Ducktrap brand.
Attorneys representing the plaintiff -- a retail store, gas station
and catering operation -- said while they believe their client
"would ultimately prevail" in a trial, the settlement was
acceptable to resolve the issue.
Neversink General Store, which operates its catering business and
gas station in a town of 3,400 people, alleged Mowi's deceptive
marketing practices included its Ducktrap brand not meeting the
Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) guidelines for labeling products
as "sustainable" and "eco-friendly."
The lawsuit alleged Mowi's products are instead "sourced from
salmon that are farmed using unsustainable and environmentally
destructive practices."
The suit also alleged Mowi's Ducktrap branded products mislead
consumers to believe they are made from salmon produced in Maine.
"In truth, the products are made from salmon industrially farmed
outside of the United States," the lawsuit says.
As part of the settlement, for a period of two years Mowi will be
forbidden from using the terms "sustainably sourced," "all natural"
and "naturally smoked salmon from Maine" on any Ducktrap
packaging.
The ruling does not prohibit Mowi from using the terms or similar
terms on other products that meet the bar for use of the language.
Mowi is also being sued as part of price-fixing lawsuits in Canada
and the United States and is under investigation in Europe for
colluding to control prices. The US Justice Department has also
opened a criminal investigation in antitrust issues involving Mowi
and other leading salmon farming companies.
Mowi Group Communications Director Ola Helge Hjetland declined to
comment to IntraFish on the proposed settlement, but said the
company would release details in the near future. [GN]
MTA BRIDGES: Faces Lezama Suit Over Workplace Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE LEZAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS, METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL AUTHORITY,
and JUSTIN C. VELLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02392 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 18, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
discriminatory practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and deprivation of statutory rights pursuant to the New York
State Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered harassment
and unequal treatment by the Defendants since 2015 when Defendant
Vella became the Plaintiff's supervisor. Defendant Vella from the
beginning of his time supervising the Plaintiff would proposition
and make sexual advances toward the Plaintiff and others during
work hours and at the Plaintiff's workplace. The Plaintiff went to
his captain and the general manager of the Bronx Whitestone Bridge
to make complaints against Defendant Vella but they did not
investigate Defendant VELLA's conduct, did not reprimand him for
his conduct, and did not re-assign either the Plaintiff or
Defendant Vella, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment
practice, the Plaintiff sustained injury, including economic
damages, past and future physical and emotional distress, and the
costs of bringing this action.
Mr. Lezama was hired by the Defendants as an MTA Bridge and Tunnel
police officer at the Bronx Whitestone bridge from in or around
2002.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public benefit
corporation located at 2 Broadway, New York, New York.
MTA Bridges and Tunnels is a public benefit corporation located at
Park 1, New York, New York.
Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority is a public benefit
corporation located at 2 Broadway, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
NATIONAL HEALTH: Plaintiff's Move to Manufacture Venue Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel L. Delnero, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that in class action
litigation -- particularly TCPA class actions -- procedural fights
can be more important than substantive merits. And a recent
decision from the Eastern District of California highlighted just
how critical those fights can be, and the difference retaining
experienced class litigators can make.
In federal court, venue is generally proper in either the judicial
district where a defendant resides or the judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim
occurred. Thus, in Tuso v. National Health Agents, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 40088 (E.D. Cal. March 3, 2021), the natural choice of venue
was in Florida, where the defendant resided and from where the
calls were launched.
But Florida is in the Eleventh Circuit, where the plaintiff would
have to deal with Glasser, Salcedo, and Cordoba. So the plaintiff's
Florida-based counsel filed suit in California, where the plaintiff
resided.
Venue, though, is determined based on where the defendant resides
and where the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Not where
the plaintiff resides.
Given the complete lack of facts justifying venue in California,
the court had no difficulty determining that venue was improper in
the ED Cal. In a significant move, however, the court did not
simply transfer the case to Florida. It dismissed it outright.
Dismissal here was the correct procedural move because the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss, not a motion to transfer under
forum non-conveniens. The dismissal was without prejudice, so it is
possible that the plaintiff may refile either in Florida or in
California with more robust allegations, but for now at least it is
a significant victory for the defense. [GN]
NATIONAL SURETY: Restaurants Sue Over Denied COVID Insurance Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NEIGHBORHOOD GRILLS MANAGEMENT LLC and NEIGHBORHOOD GRILLS HOLDING
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL SURETY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00374 (W.D. Wash., March 18, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for declaratory judgment and breach of
contract.
According to the complaint, the Defendant denied the insurance
benefits claim of the Plaintiffs after their property sustained
direct physical loss and/or direct physical property damage related
to state government proclamations and orders in order to stop the
spread of COVID-19. The Defendant made no meaningful investigation
of the Plaintiffs' claim or their business losses. Without any
basis, the Defendant's denial letter asserts there was not any
suspension of the Plaintiffs' operations nor any direct physical
loss of or damage to covered property. The Plaintiffs purchased
all-risk insurance policies from the Defendant. The policy
coverages include Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage,
Extended Business Income Coverage, Civil Authority Coverage, Crisis
Management Coverage, Off Premises Special Event Cancellation
Coverage, Event Cancellation and Postponement Expense Reimbursement
Coverage, and Communicable Disease Extra Expense Coverage, the suit
adds.
Neighborhood Grills Management LLC and Neighborhood Grills Holding
LLC are owners and operators of several restaurants and bar
businesses, as well as a catering business, located in King County,
Washington.
National Surety Corporation is an insurance company, with its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen J. Crane, Esq.
CRANE DUNHAM PLLC
3600 15th Ave W, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98119-1330
Telephone: (206) 292-9090
Facsimile: (206) 292-9736
E-mail: scrane@cranedunham.com
NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Neptune
Wellness Solutions Inc. ("Neptune" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NEPT)
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 July 24,
2019 and February 16, 2021, 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. Neptune suffered from higher costs to
integrate the assets of and operations of its SugarLeaf acquisition
than it acknowledged, placing a considerable strain on the
Company's capital reserves. It was reasonably foreseeable that the
Company would need to raise additional capital through additional
stock offerings. 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 Neptune,
investors suffered damages. [GN]
NESTLE HEALTHCARE: Kuciver Hits Artificial Vanilla in Drink Mix
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Kuciver, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00936 (S.D. N.Y., February 19, 2021),
seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees
and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act.
Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells powdered nutritional drink mix under the
Carnation Breakfast Essentials brand represented as "Classic French
Vanilla." Kuciver alleges that their vanilla-flavored drink contain
vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite its labelling indicating
"natural flavor." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
NIVEK CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Winner Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA WINNER, in individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIVEK CORPORATION dba FOOTHILL
GYM; BRIAN PAUL WHELAN; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21BBCV00238 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Mar. 12, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Winner was employed by the Defendants as staff.
NIVEK CORPORATION dba FOOTHILL GYM is engaged in the business of
fitness centers, and owns and operates Foothill Gym located in
Monrovia, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Kate N. Blanco (SBN: 331344)
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
kblanco@mahoney-law.net
OHIO: Southern District of Ohio Endorses Dismissal of Grant v. DORC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, recommends that
the case, ROSALIE GRANT, Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 2:20-cv-6456 (S.D. Ohio), be dismissed for want of
prosecution.
On December 16, 2020, Plaintiff Grant, along with two additional
pro se Plaintiffs, improperly filed a class action suit in the
Court. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Jolson issued an Order
severing the Plaintiffs and filings into separate cases. Given
this posture, the Court ordered Plaintiff Grant to either pay the
full filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis within 30 days. After 46 days, the Plaintiff had still not
paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma
pauperis, so the Court ordered her to show cause as to why her case
should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. As of the date of
this Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has still not
responded to the Court's orders.
Given the Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Court's
orders, dismissal of the matter for failure to prosecute is
appropriate, Magistrate Judge Jolson finds. Since filing the
action in December 2020, the Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to
comply with the Court's orders, despite Magistrate Judge Jolson's
repeated instruction. First, the Plaintiff failed to pay the full
filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Thereafter, she failed to show cause as to why the case should not
be dismissed for want of prosecution. Importantly, the Plaintiff
has been afforded over two months to comply with these orders, or
to show cause otherwise.
In view of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Jolson concludes that
the Plaintiff has abandoned the action. Although the Court has a
favored practice of reaching a disposition on the merits, the
Court's need to manage its docket, the interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the
defendant" outweigh allowing the case to linger. Finally,
Magistrate Judge Jolson has considered less drastic sanctions than
dismissal but concludes that any such effort would be futile given
the Plaintiff's failure to participate in these proceedings.
Magistrate Judge Jolson, therefore, recommends the case be
dismissed for want of prosecution.
If any party objects to the Report and Recommendation, that party
may, within 14 days of the date of the Report, file and serve on
all parties written objections to those specific proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s). The parties are
specifically advised that failure to object to the Report will
result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review
the Report de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to
appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/3dema335 from
Leagle.com.
OHIO: Southern District of Ohio Endorses Dismissal of Lamar v. DORC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, recommends that
the case, VYESTER LAMAR, Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 2:20-cv-6457 (S.D. Ohio), be dismissed for want of
prosecution.
On Dec. 16, 2020, Plaintiff Lamar, along with two additional pro se
Plaintiffs, improperly filed a class action suit in the Court.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Jolson issued an Order severing the
Plaintiffs and filings into separate cases. Given this posture,
she ordered Plaintiff Lamar to either pay the full filing fee or
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days.
After 46 days, the Plaintiff had still not paid the filing fee or
submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, so the
Magistrate Judge ordered Lamar to show cause as to why her case
should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. As of the date of
the Report and Recommendation, the Plaintiff has still not
responded to the Court's orders.
Given the Plaintiff's repeated failures to comply with the Court's
orders, dismissal of the matter for failure to prosecute is
appropriate, Magistrate Judge Jolson finds. Since filing the
action in December 2020, the Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to
comply with the Court's orders, despite Magistrate Judge Jolson's
repeated instruction. First, the Plaintiff failed to pay the full
filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Thereafter, she failed to show cause as to why the case should not
be dismissed for want of prosecution. Importantly, the Plaintiff
has been afforded over two months to comply with these orders, or
to show cause otherwise.
In view of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Jolson concludes that
the Plaintiff has abandoned the action. Although the Court has a
favored practice of reaching a disposition on the merits, the
Court's need to manage its docket, the interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation, and the risk of prejudice to the
defendant" outweigh allowing the case to linger. Finally,
Magistrate Judge Jolson has considered less drastic sanctions than
dismissal but concludes that any such effort would be futile given
the Plaintiff's failure to participate in these proceedings.
Magistrate Judge Jolson, therefore, recommends the case be
dismissed for want of prosecution.
If any party objects to the Report, that party may, within 14 days
of the date of the Report, file and serve on all parties written
objections to those specific proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made, together with supporting authority for
the objection(s). The parties are specifically advised that
failure to object to the Report will result in a waiver of the
right to have the District Judge review the Report de novo, and
also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/2j3u8tth from
Leagle.com.
ONTRAK INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Ontrak and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing the
Company's 2020 fourth quarter and year end financial results. Among
other results, Ontrak cut its 2021 guidance, announcing the loss of
its largest customer. Specifically, Ontrak's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Terren Peizer disclosed that "[a]fter a long
process with our largest customer where we believed we were working
towards an extended and expanded contract, we were notified after
market close on February 26, 2021 that our participation status
with this customer will be terminated effective June 26, 2021. We
were advised to stop enrollment of new members for this customer
and await guidance from the customer on transition plans for the
8,400 members who are currently benefiting from the Ontrak
program."
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 [GN]
ONTRAK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on March 8 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OTRK) from
November 5, 2020, through February 26, 2021 (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Ontrak, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Ontrak, Inc. you may,
no later than May 3, 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
Ontrak, Inc.
On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announced
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. 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.
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]
ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors Ormat
Technologies, Inc. ("Ormat" or the "Company")(NYSE: ORA). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Ormat and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On March 1, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
("Hindenburg") published a report entitled "Ormat: Dirty Dealings
in 'Clean' Energy." According to the Hindenburg report, the Company
"has engaged in what we believe to be widespread and systematic
acts of intentional corruption," adding that it "expect[s] the
blowback to these revelations to be severe, threatening Ormat's
contracts in its most lucrative markets." In the report, Hindenburg
claims to have "uncovered evidence tying Ormat to corruption with
senior government officials" and "direct evidence tying Ormat to
corruption with senior Guatemalan government officials", further
noting that "Ormat paid contractors in Kenya tied to corrupt
government officials."
On this news, Ormat's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 1.1%, to
close at $84.67 per share on March 1, 2021.
That same day, after the market closed, Ormat responded to the
report and acknowledged that "[t]he Company is aware of claims
being investigated in Israel regarding Ravit Barniv, an Ormat Board
member, and Hezi Kattan, the Company's General Counsel and Chief
Compliance Officer." Though the "claims involve Ms. Barniv's and
Mr. Kattan's work at another company, prior to joining Ormat," the
Company announced that it would "transfer the responsibility for
the Company's compliance function to other members of the Ormat
management team until these issues are resolved."
On this news, Ormat's stock price fell another $1.68 per share, or
nearly 2%, to close at $82.99 per share on March 2, 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 [GN]
PATENAUDE & FELIX: Summary Judgment in Moyer FDCPA Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CANDACE MOYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C.,
Case No. 20-1937 (3d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirms the District Court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Patenaude.
Plaintiff Moyer brought a putative class action against Patenaude
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") after
Patenaude sent her a collection letter inviting her to "eliminate
further collection action" by calling Patenaude. Moyer failed to
pay her credit-card debt, so the card issuer hired Patenaude to
collect it.
Ms. Moyer sued Patenaude for violating the FDCPA. According to
Moyer, the letter's second sentence -- "if you wish to eliminate
further collection action, please contact us at 800-832-7675 ext.
8500" ("Contact Sentence") -- would deceive a debtor. She argues
that the Contact Sentence would lead a debtor to believe that a
phone call is a "legally effective way to stop such collection
action" when, in reality, only written communication can legally
stop collection activity. In addition, Moyer claimed that the
Contact Sentence would make a debtor uncertain about her right to
dispute the debt in writing.
The District Court disagreed with Moyer and granted summary
judgment in favor of Patenaude. This timely appeal followed.
Ms. Moyer first contends that the letter is a deceptive means of
debt collection in violation of Section 1692e(10) because Patenaude
indicated that a phone call was a "legally effective" means of
stopping collection activity. Section 1692g(b) requires a debt
collector to "cease all collection efforts if the consumer provides
written notice" that she disputes the debt. A phone call from a
debtor would not legally require Patenaude to cease collection
efforts. But, according to Moyer, Patenaude's invitation to
"eliminate" collection action through a phone call would deceive a
debtor into believing that the call would, by law, require
collection efforts to cease.
The Third Circuit opines that Moyer's argument fails because
Patenaude never claimed the phone call was a "legally effective"
means of stopping collection efforts. Patenaude invited Moyer to
call to "eliminate" collection action, but never asserted,
explicitly or implicitly, that the phone call would, by law, force
Patenaude to cease its collection efforts. Moyer reads into the
invitation an implication that it does not create. For this
reason, the district court decisions cited by Moyer are inapposite.
They each involve a debt collector who did state that a phone call
would legally require collection activity to cease.
Ms. Moyer next contends that Patenaude's insertion of the
invitation to call in the Contact Sentence before the Validation
Notice causes confusion regarding how to pursue her rights
contained in the Validation Notice. According to her, when an
invitation to call appears directly before an acknowledgment that
the debtor can write to exercise her rights under Section 1692g,
the debtor would be left uncertain about whether she should call or
write to exercise her rights.
The Third Circuit finds that Moyer sees confusion where none
exists. The Validation Notice instructs the debtor to write to
exercise their Section 1692g rights, leaving no suggestions that a
phone call would suffice. Likewise, the Contact Sentence does not
suggest that a debtor could exercise any Section 1692g rights over
the phone. A nd the order of the paragraphs does not create
confusion about what each one conveys.
For the foregoing reasons, the Third Circuit concludes that Moyer's
claims fail. Therefore, it affirms the District Court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of Patenaude.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/558r6534 from Leagle.com.
Ari H. Marcus -- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- Yitzchak Zelman --
info@marcuszelman.com -- MARCUS & ZELMAN, at 701 Cookman Avenue,
Suite 300, in Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712, Counsel for
Plaintiff-Appellant Candace Moyer.
Edward M. Koch -- koche@whiteandwilliams.com -- Marc L. Penchansky
-- penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com -- WHITE & WILLIAMS, One
Liberty Place, Suite 1800, at 1650 Market Street, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103, Counsel for Defendant-Appellee Patenaude &
Felix, A.P.C.
PERSOLVE LEGAL: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Persolve Legal Group,
LLP, et al. The case is styled as Anthony Johnson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Persolve Legal Group,
LLP. United Holding Group LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-00678-JRS-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Persolve -- http://persolve.com/-- is a full service legal
recovery and collection firm that focuses on litigation in
California and national collections under the name of Account
Resolution Associates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on March 8 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Beverly v.
Plug Power Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-02004) on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Plug
Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) securities
between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 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 Plug 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/plug-power-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 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 2, 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 complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plug 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]
PLUG POWER: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on March 8 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) securities
between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plug investors have until May 7, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Plug investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On 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 2, 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 complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company 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.
If you purchased Plug securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martinez Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV09644 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., Mar. 11, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Praxair Distribution Inc. distributes industrial, medical, and
specialty gases. The Company utilizes cylinders and small cryogenic
containers to provide its products to electronic, environmental,
biomedical, food and beverage, and chemical industries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Seeks Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Princeton University and Aetna urged a
Pennsylvania federal court to toss a proposed class action accusing
the Ivy League school's employee benefit plan of illegally seeking
coverage payments from members, arguing that the conduct is
permitted under the plan's subrogation provisions. [GN]
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Review of Discovery Order in Mantha Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH MANTHA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant,
Civil No. 19-12235-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied
QuoteWizard's Motion for Reconsideration.
The case is a putative consumer class action brought against
Defendant QuoteWizard under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. On Feb. 24, 2021, Judge Sorokin
overruled QuoteWizard's Objection to a discovery order issued by
Chief Magistrate Judge Kelley. QuoteWizard has moved for
reconsideration of that ruling.
Plaintiff Mantha seeks roughly 46,000 Do Not Call requests made by
consumers in response to text messages sent to them on
QuoteWizard's behalf by Drips Holdings, LLC, a third party. Mantha
served his Second Request for Production of Documents ("RPD") on
QuoteWizard in mid-2020.
Two of these requests are relevant in the matter.
First, Request 17 ("RPD #17") sought to require that QuoteWizard:
Produce all documents evidencing any complaints received by you
from anyone, including any government agency, in regards to text
messages sent by You or some entity on Your behalf utilizing Drips
technology.
QuoteWizard refused this request, asserting the documents sought
were not relevant, production would be burdensome, the information
sought was confidential, and that such production would be beyond
the scope of Phase 1 discovery. It did not contend that the
documents sought were not in its possession custody or control.
Second, Request 25 ("RPD #25") sought to require that QuoteWizard:
Produce all consumer requests that future telemarketing calls cease
(Do Not Call) provided to you by anyone in any way relating to text
telemarketing conducted on your behalf by Drips.
QuoteWizard also refused this request, asserting the documents
sought were not relevant, production would be burdensome, the
information sought was confidential, and that such production would
be beyond the scope of Phase 1 discovery. Again, it did not
contend that the documents sought were not in its possession
custody or control.
Mantha moved to compel production of RPD #17 and RPD #25 on Sept.
30, 2020. In the joint status report submitted to the Court (per
the Court's direction and in lieu of a motion to compel), the
parties essentially reiterated their earlier positions: Mantha
sought the complaints and QuoteWizard pressed relevance and burden
objections. As before, QuoteWizard did not contend the documents
sought were not in its possession, custody, or control.
Judge Kelley resolved the dispute. On Oct. 19, 2020, she ordered:
"Concerning RPD #17, defendant will produce all documents
evidencing any complaints received by QuoteWizard from anyone,
including any governmental agency, regarding text messages sent by
QuoteWizard or on QuoteWizard's behalf using Drips technology."
She continued: "Concerning RPD #25, defendant will produce all 'Do
Not Call' requests relating to telemarketing conducted on behalf of
QuoteWizard by Drips." As to the somewhat related RPD #16, Judge
Kelley ordered that QuoteWizard "shall produce any emails between
QuoteWizard and a third party relating to any consumer
telemarketing complaints that could possibly be related to the
consumers' consent. It is not necessary that the complaints
explicitly reference consent."
Nothing in Judge Kelley's October 2020 Order limited the required
discovery to a list of phone numbers or a list of complaints; she
ordered production of "all documents evidencing any complaints,"
and the production of "all 'Do Not Call' requests," in
QuoteWizard's possession, custody, or control. Apparently, no
party considered Judge Kelley's Order ambiguous or clearly
erroneous as neither party sought clarification or reconsideration
from Judge Kelley and neither party objected to the undersigned.
QuoteWizard supplemented its responses to Mantha's Second RPD. In
response to RPD #17, QuoteWizard represented it had no documents
"evidencing any complaints received by it from anyone." In
response to RPD #25, QuoteWizard produced a spreadsheet evincing
more than 46,000 Do Not Call requests received by Drips. The
spreadsheet does not contain the Do Not Call requests themselves as
the text of Judge Kelley's Order required, rather it contains five
columns with information such as the phone number of the person
making the request (which QuoteWizard redacted) and the date of the
Do Not Call request. Following some back and forth, QuoteWizard's
counsel disclosed to counsel for Mantha over email that further
documents potentially responsive to RPDs #17 and #25 might exist,
such as text messages from consumers requesting no further contact.
QuoteWizard took the position, however, that any such documents
were held by Drips and thus were not in QuoteWizard's possession,
custody, or control.
Plaintiff Mantha requested that Judge Kelley compel production of
the substance of the Do Not Call requests (including, among other
things, the requests themselves) by letter dated Dec. 20, 2020,
arguing these documents were responsive to both RPD #17 and #25.
Judge Kelley held a hearing, at which QuoteWizard argued production
would be disproportionately burdensome, exceed the scope of Phase 1
discovery, and that the documents were not in its possession within
the meaning of the rules. After hearing argument, Judge Kelley
orally ordered QuoteWizard to "provide all the text messages either
in Drips or QuoteWizard's possession concerning the approximately
48,000 calls." That same day she reiterated the order in writing,
slightly broadening its scope.
QuoteWizard objected to that portion of Judge Kelley's order
requiring production of the Do Not Call requests, arguing inter
alia that the documents are not within its possession, custody, or
control. Mantha opposed, highlighting that QuoteWizard had
previously been able to secure consumer communications from Drips
when convenient for its own arguments.
After review, Judge Sorokin overruled QuoteWizard's Objection,
holding, that the record before the Court establishes that, under
any standard of review, the relevant documents are within the
custody or control of QuoteWizard (even if not currently within its
possession)
QuoteWizard now seeks reconsideration of this Order. Its only
argument is that the documents at issue are not in its possession,
custody, or control.
Judge Sorokin assumes that QuoteWizard has already produced all
responsive complaints, requests, or comments within its possession,
custody, or control (other than those held by Drips, which are the
subject of QuoteWizard's Objection). He further assumes that the
three categories of consumer communications at issue are in the
possession and custody of Drips. The only remaining question is
whether the documents are within QuoteWizard's control.
Judge Sorokin holds that four factors demonstrate that Mantha has
met its burden and established QuoteWizard's control over the three
categories of documents identified above to the extent they are
within the possession of Drips. First, QuoteWizard has already
demonstrated that it has the ability to obtain consumer comments
from Drips. Second, the nature of the relationship between
QuoteWizard and Drips strongly supports the conclusion that
QuoteWizard has control of the consumer communications at issue.
Third, QuoteWizard concedes that it had the authority and the means
to audit the Do Not Call requests that Drips collected on its
behalf.
Fourth, at the outset of this litigation, QuoteWizard represented
"that it had placed Drips on notice of thie litigation and had
instructed Drips to preserve all evidence relating to the text
communications to the Plaintiff and other putative class members
necessarily encompassing the 46,000 Do Not Call requests at issue,"
and that Drips had "confirmed it is in possession of records
evidencing the text communications [at issue] and ha[d] agreed to
preserve all such documents."
Based upon these considerations, Judge Sorokin concludes
QuoteWizard has control, within the meaning of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 34, of the "complaints," "requests," and other
communications made to Drips in response to the marketing campaigns
underlying the claims in the lawsuit, including the roughly 46,000
Do Not Call requests that Drips received. He therefore affirms its
prior Order requiring production of these documents. His ruling
resolves the arguments raised by QuoteWizard's Motion for
Reconsideration. Before concluding, however, several further
points require clarification in light of the extensive and heated
litigation by the parties over these discovery orders.
Judge Sorokin first clarifies the nature of the communications at
issue in the Order. Judge Kelley's Order was not limited to just
the 46,000 Do Not Call requests documented by Drips— she ordered
production of all "complaints", all Do Not Call requests documented
by Drips, and all comments related to the Do Not Call requests. As
noted above, her Order encompassed documents currently in
QuoteWizard's possession and custody, as well as those under its
control (even if currently held by Drips). What is more, aspects
of Judge Kelley's Order stretch beyond the 46,000 Do Not Call
requests the parties have focused upon in briefing. While
complaints and Do Not Call requests may overlap in the sense that
one document or text communication may qualify as both a complaint
and a Do Not Call request, not all complaints necessarily
constitute Do Not Call requests. Similarly, not all Do Not Call
requests, contrary to Mantha's assertion, necessarily constitute
complaints. And obviously, comments relating to the Do Not Call
requests may well be a category all on their own. Judge Kelley
ordered production of all three categories of documents and the
Court has reaffirmed that Order.
The Order does not impose any obligations on Drips. The record
before the Court suggests Drips has taken the position that any
responsive documents it possesses are not subject to QuoteWizard's
possession, custody, or control. The Order, though making certain
determinations about the relationship between Drips and
QuoteWizard, does not bind Drips for the obvious reason that Drips
is not before the Court. In addition, Judge Sorokin notes that
Drips has never sought to intervene, file an amicus brief, or
otherwise place its views before the Court except indirectly.
On March 15, 2021, with its Motion for Reconsideration pending
before the Court, QuoteWizard filed a notice advising the Court it
had served a subpoena on Drips for the documents the Court has
ordered QuoteWizard to produce. The notice also advised the Court
that Drips has filed a motion to quash QuoteWizard's subpoena,
pursuant to Rule 45, in Drips' home district of the Northern
District of Ohio.
Judge Sorokin finds that QuoteWizard's notice raises burden in a
way that it has failed to raise it to date. He says the litigation
over these discovery requests has proceeded in a piecemeal fashion
and has already consumed substantial attorney and judicial
resources. Nonetheless, the Judge considers these newly
articulated burden concerns which, in fairness, Mantha ought to be
given the opportunity to brief. Because these disputes have
already substantially delayed the case, Mantha will respond to
QuoteWizard's latest filing, within five business days. In so
doing, Mantha's response will not only address the factual basis
for burden but also the applicable legal standard.
Finally, given his conclusion that the consumer communications are
within QuoteWizard's control and given the unwieldly archiving
system employed by Drips, Judge Sorokin orders QuoteWizard to show
cause why the Court should not require it, going forward, to ensure
preservation of all communications (sent and received) regarding
all marketing campaigns conducted by Drips on its behalf in a more
easily accessible format. This filing is due 14 days from date of
the Order.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sorokin denied QuoteWizard's
Motion for Reconsideration except that the Court reserves on the
burden arguments raised by the supplemental filing. The parties
will provide the judicial officer in the case pending in the
Northern District of Ohio with a copy of the Ruling.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/22aepsaa from Leagle.com.
RANGE RESOURCES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on March 8 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Range Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RRC) from April 29, 2016 through February 10,
2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Range Resources securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Range Resources
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the
status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of
regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially
decreased the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to
plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a
DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January
2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the
DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the
Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On February 10, 2021, prior to the close of the trading session,
the DEP issued a press release announcing the payment of a $294,000
civil penalty by Range Resources to the agency for the Company's
violations of the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had launched an
investigation of the Company after finding conflicting and
inaccurate information regarding the status of a Company well in
Fayette County, Pennsylvania. After subpoenaing the Company for
information about its wells, DEP found that "between Tuesday, July
16, 2013, and Monday, October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources'
conventional wells were placed on inactive status but were never
used again" and that several of the Company's wells had not been
used for "12 months at the time Range Resources submitted its
applications for inactive status, even though "after 12 consecutive
months of no productive, the well would be classified as abandoned
and must be plugged." The Company ultimately had to plug the wells
identified by DEP as having no viable future use to remediate the
issue.
On this news, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per share, or
6.08%, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 3, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Range Resources securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rangeresourcescorporation-rrc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-374/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
RBC INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vacation Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that
five proposed class action lawsuits have been filed against several
Canadian insurance and banking companies over allegations that they
failed to provide proper vacation pay to advisers.
The five proposed class actions were launched in early 2019 and
seek a total of $1.2 billion for vacation pay that is purportedly
owed to both current and former employees. While not new, they
recently came to light following recent court decisions which
upheld individual employees' rights to outstanding vacation pay as
part of severance packages.
Of the five lawsuits, RBC was named as a defendant in three. The
Bank of Montreal and Allstate Insurance were the other two
companies being sued.
One of the lead plaintiffs, Maureen Barrett, was a former insurance
salesperson for RBC Insurance. She resigned from her position in
2017 after nearly a decade with the company.
Barrett claimed that she only received vacation pay on her base
salary of $37,500. She also claimed that RBC Insurance systemically
failed to factor in the calculation the commissions and performance
bonuses that account for most of her compensation.
The class action lawsuit she is a lead plaintiff of is seeking $80
million from RBC Insurance.
"We need to make sure that this is rectified for those who are
taken advantage of," Barrett told CBC News in an interview. "That's
how I feel. When this happened, when I found out that this took
place, I felt as if I was taken advantage of."
When reached for a comment, RBC declined to discuss anything
specific with regards to the lawsuits, but had a statement.
"RBC takes pride in ensuring that everyone who works at any RBC
company is fairly compensated," said RBC Insurance communications
director Greg Skinner in an email to CBC News.
"The policies that apply to the employees involved in the action
state that their compensation includes vacation pay and statutory
holiday pay."
Meanwhile, Allstate is facing its own $160-million lawsuit over
similar allegations of inadequate vacation pay. It was filed by
home and auto insurance salesperson Sung Taek Lee.
"Allstate compensates its employees in full compliance with all
provincial employment legislation," the insurer said in statement
in response to the lawsuit.
CBC News reported that all five class actions have yet to be
certified by the courts, and none of the allegations have been
tested by a judge or jury. [GN]
RENEWABLE ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REGI)
Class Period: 5/3/2018 - 2/25/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-renewable-energy-group-inc-securities-litigation
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (VLDR)
Class Period: 11/9/2020 - 2/19/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-litigation
Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS)
Class Period: 5/4/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-leidos-holdings-inc-securities-litigation
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 -- http://www.claimsfiler.com-- has a single mission:
to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover
their share of billions of dollars from securities class action
settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for
free to gain access to information and settlement websites for
various securities class action cases so they can timely submit
their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to
be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have
a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
ROCHE-BOBOIS USA: Epstein Sues Over Defective Furniture Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRA EPSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCHE-BOBOIS USA, LTD.; and ROCHE BOBOIS
PARAMUS; and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
MID-L-001577-21 (N.J. Sup., Middlesex County, Mar. 12, 2021)
alleges violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.
According to the complaint, between June 1, 2019 and the present,
the Plaintiff purchased high-end furniture (the "Class Furniture")
from the Defendants that was manufactured using flash blue nuit
color fabric (the "Fabric"). However, the Fabric used to
manufacture the Class Furniture purchased by the Plaintiff is
allegedly defective. The Fabric is defective in that it begins to
deteriorate at an astonishingly fast rate almost as soon as the
Class Furniture made with the Fabric is put into use by the
consumer. For example, the Fabric used to make the sectional sofa
purchased by Ms. Epstein began to deteriorate by becoming
discolored, worn, and faded within one month of her taking delivery
of the sofa, the suit says.
The Class Furniture was negligently designed and manufactured in
that the Fabric is not suitable for the manufacture of furniture
because it deteriorates at such a precipitous rate that the Class
Furniture is rendered unfit for the purposes for which such
high-end furniture, or any furniture for that matter, is intended,
added the suit.
Roche-Bobois U.S.A, Ltd. was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes owning or leasing franchises, patents, and
copyrights which they in turn license others to use. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot D. Ostrove, Esq.
EPSTEIN OSTROVE, LLC
200 Metroplex Drive, Suite 304
Edison, NJ 08817
Telephone: (732) 828-8600
ROOT INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Root Inc. ("Root" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ROOT) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, and docketed under 21-cv-01197, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Root securities between
October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"); and/or (b) Root Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued
in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted
on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Plaintiff
pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Root securities during the
Class Period and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you have
until May 18, 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.
Root provides insurance products and services in the U.S. The
Company has historically focused on auto insurance and operates a
direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through
mobile applications, as well as through the Company's website.
Leading up to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an
innovator in the personal insurance space with a new data- and
technology-driven business model that was ready to disrupt
traditional insurance markets and capture disproportionate market
share, in part because of the Company's telematics-driven approach
to insurance—i.e., the collection and transmission of vehicle-use
data through devices.
On October 5, 2020, Root filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective on October 27, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement"). On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the
IPO, selling 26.8 million shares of the Company's Class A common
stock to the public at $27.00 per share for total approximate
proceeds of $724.43 million. On October 29, 2020, Root filed a
prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement
(the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement,
the "Offering Documents").
The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for
at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the
Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to
meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants'
touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages,
several of the Company's established industry peers in fact
possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect
to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements
throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
On March 9, 2021, Bank of America ("BofA") Securities analyst
Joshua Shanker ("Shanker") initiated coverage of Root with an
"Underperform" rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely
to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root "will
require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets
to bridge its cash flow needs." Shanker also noted that insurers
Progressive, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico would
continue to impede the Company's profitability, with Progressive
and Allstate having a "sizable advantage over Root in terms of
amount of [telematics] data as well as engagement with the data"
used to price their auto insurance.
On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to
close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total
decline of 54.93% from the Offering price.
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]
RUANE CUNNIFF: Faces ERISA Lawsuit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------
René E. Thorne, Esq., and Stacey C.S. Cerrone, Esq., of Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently concluded
that investment advisor Ruane Cunniff & Goldfarb must face a
proposed class action under ERISA Section 502(a)(2) for breach of
fiduciary duty relating to its alleged mismanagement of a
profit-sharing plan sponsored by DST Systems, Inc. Cooper v. Ruane
Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc., No. 17-2805 (2d Cir. March 4, 2021). The
suit challenges Ruane's allegedly "catastrophic over-allocation" of
plan assets to shares in Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which
dramatically declined in value in 2015-2016.
In 2016, Clive Cooper, who had been employed by DST and
participated in DST's profit-sharing plan, filed the lawsuit naming
Ruane, DST, and others as Defendants. Then Cooper successfully
mediated his claims with DST and others, voluntarily dismissing his
claims against all Defendants except Ruane.
In November 2016, Ruane moved for an order compelling Cooper to
arbitrate his claims. In 2017, the Southern District of New York
granted Ruane's motion to compel arbitration, based on Cooper's
agreement with DST to arbitrate all legal claims "relating to" his
employment. The district court concluded that the fiduciary breach
claims against Ruane related to Cooper's employment with DST and
that Ruane -- a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement -- was
entitled under equitable estoppel to enforce the agreement against
Cooper.
The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the breach of fiduciary
duty claims did not "relate to" Cooper's employment with DST under
the terms of the arbitration agreement. The opinion, by Judge Susan
L. Carney and joined by Judge Raymond Lohier, explained that in an
employment arbitration agreement a claim will "relate to"
employment "only if the merits of that claim involve facts
particular to an individual plaintiff's own employment." Here, the
merits of Cooper's claims did not involve such facts. Cooper's
claims turned "entirely" on Ruane's investment decisions and had
"no connection" to Cooper's work performance, evaluations,
treatment by supervisors, his compensation, or the condition of his
workplace. The opinion further observed that Cooper's claims could
have been brought by other individuals and entities that were never
employed by DST, including the Secretary of Labor or DST itself.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan filed a dissenting opinion, noting that
the arbitration agreement did not clearly and unambiguously exclude
Cooper's breach of fiduciary duty claims from arbitration and that
any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of arbitration. Also, he
would have affirmed the district court's equitable estoppel
holding, because of Cooper's knowledge of Ruane's role in managing
the profit-sharing account and Cooper's characterization of Ruane
and DST as closely intertwined throughout the litigation. [GN]
SAINT-GOBAIN: Vermont Proposes New Medical Monitoring Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Therrien, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that the
sponsors of legislation to help Vermonters obtain medical
monitoring after exposure to toxic substances announced a third
legislative effort on the issue on March 5, proposing a new version
of a bill that was twice vetoed by Gov. Phil Scott.
Sens. Brian Campion and Dick Sears, both Bennington Democrats, and
supporters of the proposal, spoke on March 5 outside the former
ChemFab Corp. factory building in North Bennington. The plant is
considered by the state a primary source of PFOA contamination of
hundreds of local wells.
The senators said the newly drafted medical monitoring bill,
following prior versions in 2019 and 2020, addresses concerns
voiced by the governor that such legislation would discourage
companies from locating or expanding in Vermont.
"Legislation has twice passed by the House and Senate that would
help address this issue and both times the bill has been vetoed by
the governor," Campion said.
SMALL FIRMS EXEMPT
He added, "For those concerned about the impact of medical
monitoring on business interests, this bill is more protective of
the vast majority of Vermont businesses than the decision [in U.S.
District Court].
That's because it exempts small businesses, municipalities, and
farmers -- while the court's decision does not."
A 2019 determination by Judge Geoffrey Crawford that plaintiffs can
legally seek medical monitoring costs came during an ongoing
class-action suit by a number of Bennington residents in federal
court in Rutland.
The suit seeks those and other damages from Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics, which purchased the former ChemFab Corp. two
years prior to closing the North Bennington plant on Water Street
in 2002.
Saint-Gobain is considered by state environmental officials to be
the responsible party for the PFOA, believed to have spread through
exhaust stacks around two factory sites in town and worked into the
groundwater.
"If the court's decision stands," Campion said, "small businesses,
municipalities and farmers will have exposure for liability they
will not have in our bill."
'POLLUTERS SHOULD PAY'
Sears, who lives within the identified PFOA (perfluorooctanoic
acid) contamination zone in Bennington and is a plaintiff to the
federal suit, said, "This bill will help protect Vermonters who
have been exposed to toxic substances, through no fault of their
own, by making the polluter pay."
While the area has worked to find other sources of clean drinking
water for those with contaminated wells -- largely funded by
Saint-Gobain through consent agreements with the state Agency of
Natural Resources -- medical monitoring and other issues remain to
be fully addressed, he said.
"We thought it was common sense that whoever caused the pollution
would pay for the pollution that they caused," Sears said.
Medical monitoring, he said, "was designed to catch cancers early,
and not have to wait until somebody is almost dead before we find
out that they have contracted this cancer. And we know that these
chemicals are cancer causing."
Opposition to the legislation, Sears added, comes down to "the
business interests don't want to pay. They would rather have you,
as the contaminated property owner, your well; they would rather
have you pay, or you the taxpayer pay -- it's that simple."
GROUNDWATER
Sears also noted that the state has begun an expected hearing
process to consider officially reclassifying the groundwater in
contaminated areas as below state drinking water standards.
Even though residents may have access to clean municipal water
supplies, he said, a reclassification could affect the use of their
property. Others have said that property values could be negatively
affected.
"Those are the types of things that are happening," Sears said,
"and I think it's time to hold the polluters accountable."
"Here in Bennington County, we've lived with the devastating
impacts of toxic contamination in our community," Campion said.
"We've watched what happens when a corporate polluter harms
Vermonters' health and property, and threatens our bodies with
long-term diseases -- and then leaves us to pay the price."
The legislation "will better protect Vermont victims of toxic
pollution, and give them more a fighting chance at having their
medical screening costs covered by a toxic polluter," he said.
"In our opinion," he added, "failing to enact this legislation is a
lose-lose proposition for Vermont."
IN THE BLOOD
Long-term medical monitoring is sought in the lawsuit primarily for
those who drank contaminated water and who now have elevated levels
of PFOA or related PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in
their blood.
PFOA has been associated through medical studies to ulcerative
colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer and
diagnosed high cholesterol, and a person's blood level is known to
go down only slowly over many years.
James Sullivan, who lives "downwind of this ChemFab property," said
he has, like many neighbors, "a significantly elevated level of
PFAS" in his blood, and his family likely will have to monitor that
"for the rest of our lives."
Sullivan, a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit being pressed against
Saint-Gobain by attorneys from three law firms, said, "This bill
won't help my family, but for other Vermonters in this terrible
situation, I strongly believe polluters should be responsible for
these costs, not us."
Loreen Hackett, of nearby Hoosick Falls, N.Y, where residents -
including her family -- were also affected by PFAS contamination
from industrial operations there, said she would "love to see New
York state follow suit" on the type of legislation filed here.
"Kudos to the senators for taking another step forward and trying
to protect your families and your communities," she said. "Your
neighbors over in Hoosick Falls have been envious of many of the
steps that Vermont has taken since the beginning of this public
health crisis."
Since pollution of Hoosick area water supplies was discovered in
2015, shortly before well testing began around the ChemFab plants
here, Hackett has become an activist for legislation in her state
and nationally to deal with widespread PFAS contamination around
multiple industrial sites that have been identified in the U.S.
since the early 2000s.
"Making polluters pay just seems the most sensible option, because
it is their fault," she said.
TWO LOCAL SITES
ChemFab Corp. was formed in 1968 and first operated in a now-vacant
building at 108 Northside Drive, before moving a decade later to a
new building at 1030 Water St. (Route 67A).
PFOA was a component of liquid Teflon, with which the company
coated fiberglass and other fabrics and dried them at high
temperature.
Beyond the similarities with the experience in the Hoosick area, a
former factory on Route 346 in Pownal, once operated by principals
in what later became ChemFab, has been identified by the state as
the source of PFAS pollution of well water supplies in that town.
STATEWIDE NEED SEEN
"It's too late for this legislation to help our community's toxic
PFAS contamination crisis," Campion said. "But we want the next
Vermont community dealing with chemical contamination to have the
comfort of knowing they won't have to pay medical monitoring costs
out of pocket, or not get the care they need if they can't afford
it."
The Bennington senators said the first part of the proposed bill
"provides a legal remedy which allows Vermonters to hold polluters
accountable for the costs of medical monitoring required as a
result of exposure to toxic chemicals. The bill also provides a
second legal remedy which would allow the state government to hold
the companies that make dangerous chemicals liable for the harm
they cause to Vermont's air, land, and water."
Jon Groveman, of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, said during
the conference that it's time for Vermont to ensure that victims of
toxic pollution can recover costs from polluters for doctor visits
and laboratory tests before they contract a disease.
The new version of the bill has been crafted to address concerns
expressed by the governor in his vetoes of the original bill.
"The Legislature should act on this bill swiftly and the governor
should sign the bill into law," he said.
Sears said that unfortunately there is not be enough time to get
the revised bill through the Legislature this session. He said he
sees work continuing on the bill over the summer for submission in
the 2022 session.
"Our office will follow the proposal as it moves through the
Legislative process," Jason Maulucci, the governor's press
secretary said on March 5 in an email. "When the governor returned
previous legislation without his signature on the matter, he
offered support for a bipartisan path forward, which would have
addressed his concerns, and achieved the primary objectives of the
initiative without costing Vermonters' jobs."
Also supporting the effort during the media conference were
Bennington House District 2-1 Reps. Timothy Corcoran II and Rep.
Dane Whitman, both Democrats. [GN]
SAPPI PAPER: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Forever Chemicals"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Stackhouse, writing for WMTW, reports that a Fairfield man is
suing Sappi Paper over pollution from so-called "forever
chemicals."
The class-action suit filed on March 5 in Somerset County Superior
Court, claims Sappi's Somerset Mill in Skowhegan allowed dangerous
chemicals to contaminate his property and drinking water.
The plaintiff, Nathan Saunders, says the state tested his drinking
water in January and found levels of the chemical PFAS 185 times
higher than the EPA limit.
PFAS is linked to multiple cancers.
The suit alleges SAPPI sprayed fertilizer with PFAS, sold PFAS
biosolids as fuel and fertilizer and sent contaminated material to
local landfills.
"It is a ticking time bomb and we don't know how far it spread. We
know that for many years though biosolids were spread all over the
state of Maine," said Brian Mahany, Sauders' attorney.
Mahany says they're seeking relief for medical monitoring along
with monetary and punitive damages, adding this is the first of
several suits.
Sappi issued a statement defending its environmental practices.
"Sappi has not been served with the lawsuit and has not yet had the
opportunity to review it in detail. Sappi strongly disputes any
contention that Sappi's Somerset mill is the source of PFAS
contamination in Fairfield. Sappi is well known for its record of
environmental stewardship at the Somerset mill and at all of its
manufacturing facilities," spokesperson Olga Karagiannis said.
[GN]
SEA FOX BOAT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea Fox Boat Company,
Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Sea Fox Boat Company, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-01490 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sea Fox Boat Company -- https://www.seafoxboats.com/ -- develops
and builds hand-crafted saltwater boats.[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
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. ("Sequential Brands " or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SQBG). The class action is on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Sequential Brands between November 3,
2016 and December 11, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class
action, you must move the Court no later than May 17, 2021.
The Complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and 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 lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Sequential Brands class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Sequential Brands class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share any potential future recovery of the Sequential Brands class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you are interested in learning more about the case, please contact
Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email,
please include your phone number.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
SHERMAN OAKS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Felix Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS F. FELIX; and CARLOS GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHERMAN OAKS CLUB
SERVICE, INC.; ABRAM ABRAHEMIAN; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV09543 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Mar. 11, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as tow truck
drivers.
SHERMAN OAKS CLUB SERVICE, INC. provides towing, batteries and
emergeny road service. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tali Shaddow, Esq.
Mark Steven Avila, Esq.
AVILA & SHADDOW
21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1180
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 227-8610
Facsimile: (818) 337-7265
SOMERSET MILL: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Suit Over Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leading plaintiffs law firm Grant & Eisenhofer has filed a lawsuit
seeking class status in Maine Superior Court against current and
previous owners and operators of a paper mill that has for decades
dumped toxic and long-lasting "forever chemicals" into water and
soil, contaminating property and drinking-water sources.
The class seeks to represent anyone who lived in Somerset County,
Maine -- the state's third-largest by area -- for at least one year
between 1967 through the present. The complaint asserts that
Somerset Mill, a paper and pulp facility owned until 1995 by
Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Scott Paper Co., and now by South Africa's
Sappi Ltd., is the source of dangerous pollutants in area
residents' drinking water in concentrations far exceeding federal
government guidance.
The suit, filed March 8 in Maine Superior Court, alleges negligence
and willful and wanton conduct for the deliberate discharging and
dumping of synthetic industrial surfactants at sites across
Somerset County, including on fields as fertilizer. Plaintiffs ask
for relief in the form of damages and compensation, as well as an
order that Somerset Mill owners past and present pay for ongoing
diagnostic testing and medical monitoring of area residents at risk
of developing illness from exposure to the chemicals.
"For more than 50 years the Somerset Mill has used the land and
water of its home county as a chemical dumping ground," says
Elizabeth Graham, a director at Grant & Eisenhofer. "Further,
during their time of ownership, the mill's operators constructed
shell businesses that functioned as owners of the mill but were in
reality created to shield their corporate parents from the
environmental mess they were making. They might be gone, but the
effect of their negligence is neither gone nor forgotten."
The lawsuit's name plaintiff, Nathan Saunders, lives in Fairfield,
Me., around six miles south of the mill, and is among the
approximately 51% of Maine residents who obtain drinking water from
private wells, which are neither subject to federal or state
regulations nor to mandated testing. In January 2021, Mr. Saunders
had his well water analyzed by the state of Maine, and discovered
it was contaminated by PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances),
a family of man-made industrial chemicals. Mr. Saunders's drinking
water contained PFAS at 12,910 parts per trillion (ppt), nearly 185
times the 70 ppt limit recommended by the Environmental Protection
Agency. State tests reveal that at least 18 private wells in
Fairfield have PFAS levels higher than 70 ppt.
Also named as a defendant is Pine Tree Waste, Inc., of Maine,
which, according to the complaint, "illegally and/or negligently
disposed of 40,000 cubic yards of PFAS-containing biosolids from
the Somerset Mill, every year from at least 1976 until 1984 in
landfills… in Fairfield, Maine."
Paper mill sludge has historically been repurposed into fertilizer
for farmers' fields, and PFAS-containing residue from Somerset Mill
has figured in reports from the Maine Department of Environmental
Protection showing elevated levels of PFAS chemicals in both
agricultural soil and cows' milk. In February 2020, the complaint
says, Maine's Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry
tested milk from a dairy farm in Somerset County and found levels
of PFAS chemicals at 12,700, 14,900, and 32,200 -- the highest ever
recorded in milk in the United States.
"For every pound of PFAS that is directly discharged into
surrounding water sources," the complaint says, "nine pounds of
PFAS end up in paper mill sludge, also known as biosolids, that are
either sent to landfills . . . or repurposed and distributed as
fertilizer."
The most notorious PFAS toxins at issue are perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are used to
make paper impermeable to grease, oil, dirt, and water.
Non-biodegradable and resistant to breakdown by water or light,
PFOS and PFOA leach easily through soil and are not filtered out by
normal water-treatment processes. They have been known to persist
in the human body, typically the blood, kidney, and liver, and to
cross the placenta and to babies through breast milk.
"PFOS and PFOA are persistent and toxic, both in the environment
and in the human body," says Adam Gomez, Grant & Eisenhofer
director and a leader of the litigation team. "A half-century's
exposure for residents of Fairfield and other Somerset County towns
adds up to significant risk, which Kimberly-Clark and Scott, as
well as Sappi, were all aware of and did nothing to address. This
action seeks to remedy their disregard for residents' safety and to
ensure their physical health as well as their peace of mind."
About Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
Grant & Eisenhofer is one of the U.S.'s leading litigation firms,
with a highly successful track record representing plaintiffs in
complex litigation and arbitration matters. The firm has offices in
Wilmington (Delaware), New York, Chicago, Birmingham, and San
Francisco, and an international docket of high-profile cases. G&E's
clients include institutional investors and other plaintiffs in
U.S. and international securities matters, derivative and corporate
governance lawsuits, shareholder activism matters, bankruptcy
litigation, antitrust actions, consumer class actions,
whistleblower cases involving the False Claims Act, mass tort and
environmental suits, birth injury litigation and civil rights
suits. The firm has recovered billions for clients in just the last
few years, and has twice been cited by RiskMetrics for securing the
highest average investor recovery in securities class actions. G&E
has been named one of the country's top plaintiffs' law firms by
The National Law Journal for more than a decade, and was named one
of the U.S.'s "Most Feared Plaintiffs Firms" as well as one of
Delaware's "Regional Powerhouses for 2018" by Law360. For more
information, visit www.gelaw.com.
Contacts:
James Bourne 914-318-2427 jbourne@rippmedia.com
Allan Ripp 646-285-1779 arippnyc@aol.com [GN]
SONY INTERACTIVE: Class Action Over DualSense Units Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blase Deveney, writing for Screenrant, reports that a Microsoft
spokesperson claimed the company is aware of the issues with the
latest Xbox wireless controllers and a solution is being worked
on.
Some of the newest Xbox wireless controllers on the market are
experiencing technical issues with some of the buttons failing to
register when pressed. Fortunately, Microsoft claims that it is
aware of the situation and is presently working on a solution. The
latest consoles in the Xbox line, the series X and series S, have
been available for purchase since November of 2020.
Microsoft is not alone in dealing with controller issues for its
flagship console. Nintendo and Sony are dealing with similar
problems, particularly in the case of the latter company's
PlayStation 5, which is experiencing major drift issues with its
DualSense controllers. As a result, Sony is currently facing a
class-action lawsuit for violating consumer fraud statutes and
breaching warranty agreements with its DualSense units. While the
current Xbox controller problems have not resulted in anything like
that yet, Microsoft had to deal with a similar lawsuit back in 2020
and now it looks like the company is trying to avoid repeating its
mistakes.
According to a report from The Loadout, some of the latest Xbox
wireless controllers for the series X and series S are plagued with
unresponsive buttons, and the problem only seems to be growing as
more gamers purchase the consoles. One YouTuber by the name of Jake
posted a video demonstrating the controller malfunction by
consistently pushing the Y button over and over again in test mode
and getting no response. Unfortunately, this is nothing new for
some Xbox players as the previous generation's Xbox One console had
similar malfunctions with its controllers. A statement by a
Microsoft spokesperson let the world know that the company is aware
of the issue and is currently working on a solution; however, no
time frame for when the problem might be resolved was set.
"At Microsoft, we put all of our products through rigorous quality
assurance testing and are committed to providing customers with an
unparalleled gaming experience. We are aware some players may be
experiencing unresponsiveness with their new Xbox Wireless
Controllers and our teams are actively working on a solution. For
the best experience, we encourage customers to visit Xbox Support
for assistance."
The Y button is not the only problem with the new Xbox controllers.
Reports of unresponsive X and A buttons have surfaced as well,
making the issue seem more widespread through the product. One
likely cause for these malfunctions could be the usage of low
durability components in the controllers' construction, which was
discovered to be a major contributing factor to the PS5 drift
issues. At present, however, it is unclear what is causing the
problems with the Xbox controllers.
While not all of the new controller units are experiencing these
issues, it is frustrating that this problem has persisted over
multiple console generations. With that history, Xbox fans may be
skeptical on Microsoft's promise to fix the issue. If it was
something the company truly recognized as a problem and wanted to
remedy, then it should have been dealt with for the Xbox One.
Hopefully Microsoft is true to its word and will fix the
malfunctions before the situation gets out of hand like it did with
Sony. [GN]
TOTAL AIR: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Martin Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TOTAL AIR CARE, INC., and MIKE NIQUETTE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00124-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla,
March 10, 2021) is a collective action complain brought against the
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to challenge
its alleged unlawful pay practices.
The Plaintiff, who was a former service technician of the
Defendants, asserts that the Defendants failed to properly pay him
overtime premiums for all he worked in excess of 40 during one or
more workweeks. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly failed to keep
adequate and accurate time records with respect to hours worked
exceeding 40 in any given week.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated to him demand judgment
against the Defendants for the unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and for
all other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Toral Air Care, Inc. is an air conditioning repair company. Mike
Niquette is the owner and president. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex B.C. Ershock, Esq.
PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP
3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Suite 200
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 544-8900
Fax: (561) 544-8999
E-mail: abe@pbl-law.com
TRUBRIDGE: Conner Seeks Health Insurance Sales Agents' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIERA CONNER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUBRIDGE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00562 (N.D. Ohio, March 10, 2021) brings this complaint as
a collective action against the Defendant as a result of its
alleged unlawful pay practices and policies that violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant between September 2018
and December 2020 as a health insurance sales agent at its North
Canton Call Center.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated health insurance sales agents were classified by the
Defendant as non-exempt employees. However, the Defendant did not
properly compensate them for all hours they worked despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Specifically, the Defendant did not count the time they spent
performing pre-shift work as work hours, approximately 10 to 20
minutes, which was integral and indispensable part of their
principal activities. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated health insurance sales agents were not paid
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked each workweek. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve records of the unpaid
worked performed by its employees, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages for himself and
other similarly situated health insurance sales agents, as well as
liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys'
fees, litigation costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Trubridge, Inc. offers insurance services to its customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
TURQUOISE HILL: CEO Ulf Quellman Quits Amid Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mining Journal reports that Turquoise Hill Resources CEO Ulf
Quellman resigned after the company's 50.8% owner Rio Tinto said it
would not vote in favour of his re-election as a director at an
upcoming meeting in May.
It was Rio Tinto's view new leadership was necessary "to advance
work on matters of mutual interest and importance" to Oyu Tolgoi in
Mongolia, Turquoise Hill (TRQ) said.
The pair are at odds over ways to fund a US$1.5 billion blowout in
costs for the underground expansion at the Rio-operated massive
copper-gold mine, which is 34% owned by the Mongolian government.
Oyu Tolgoi is expected to produce 480,000 tonnes of copper annually
at peak production and be the world's fourth largest copper mine by
2030.
The government also said in January it was concerned about the
significant cost increase and indicated if the project was not
economically beneficial to the country, "it would be necessary to
review and evaluate whether it can proceed".
Activist investor Pentwater Capital Management, TRQ's largest
minority shareholder, has condemned what it described as the
"unethical termination" of Quellman as CEO.
"In over 20 years of investing in companies around the globe, I
have never seen poorer corporate governance than has been exhibited
by Rio Tinto and Turquoise Hill," CEO Matthew Hallbower said.
Pentwater said having a CEO taking action to stand up to Rio Tinto
was obviously too much for the mining giant to bear.
It said in response to a proxy contest waged by Pentwater and a
class action lawsuit against Quellman, TRQ, Rio and others,
Quellman had "finally started pushing back" against Rio with steps
including taking Rio to formal arbitration and voting with the
government to begin a formal investigation into Rio Tinto.
"Pentwater reminds the board of its obligation to protect minority
shareholders and that the directors will be held accountable for
their continued refusal to do so," it said.
Difficult to overcome
Turquoise Hill has appointed Steeve Thibeault as interim CEO.
He served as TRQ's CFO between June 2014 to April 2017 and had led
negotiations of the funding agreements entered with Rio in 2015,
but TRQ said he has had "no affiliation" with Rio or the company
since April 2017.
BMO Capital Markets has downgraded TRQ from outperform to market
perform and lowered its target price from C$23 to $18, saying it
was "increasingly likely that project funding will be dilutive to
Turquoise Hill minority equity holders".
Its revised assumption included a smaller gold stream, down from $1
billion for 15% of gold produced to $500 million for 7.5%, $1
billion in debt down from $1.75 billion including the $500 million
Rio had previously agreed, plus assumed less attractive terms on
debt reprofiling.
"We assume TRQ issues 80 million shares to bridge the financing
gap, from 35 million," BMO's Jackie Przybylowski said in a note on
March 4.
"Our more dilutive financing assumptions have a negative impact to
our target price and the value that TRQ minority shareholders
receive from Oyu Tolgoi.
"In addition, the Rio Tinto action erodes the good work that Ulf
Quellmann had achieved in establishing credibility for the company,
which will be difficult for Steeve Thibeault to overcome."
Rio told Reuters it remained committed to working with both TRQ and
the government.
The mining giant is also undergoing change at the top, with a new
CEO installed and its chair Simon Thompson announcing he would step
down next year amid "deep regret" over the company's destruction of
culturally-significant Juukan Gorge caves in Western Australia last
year. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Settles Poultry Class Action Lawsuit for $200MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that Alaska has sued 21 businesses
involved in the poultry industry, claiming the businesses operated
a cartel and illegally inflated the price of most chicken sold in
the state.
The Alaska Department of Law filed a consumer-protection lawsuit
late last month in state court seeking more than $1 billion from
the nation's largest poultry producers, distributors and pricers,
the Anchorage Daily News reported Friday. The lawsuit also asks for
damages, restitution, attorney fees and costs.
The lawsuit involves broiler chickens, which account for 98% of all
chicken sold in the U.S.
Maria Bahr, an assistant attorney general and department
spokeswoman, said the state alleges a cartel of corporations
"engaged in an illegal conspiracy to restrain production and
manipulate pricing to artificially inflate the price of broiler
chicken throughout the United States, including Alaska."
The lawsuit is one of many that have been filed since 2016, when
the largest chicken producers in the country were accused of
working together to cut supply and drive up chicken prices.
The producers collectively responded in 2017 to one lawsuit,
calling it a "conspiracy theory" and arguing price fluctuations
could be attributed to other causes, including the Great
Recession.
Tyson Foods, the nation's largest meat supplier, agreed in January
to pay more than $200 million to settle one class-action lawsuit.
Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said at the time in an email that
the company does not admit liability as part of the settlements.
Mickelson declined to comment on why Tyson settled when other
chicken producers have not.
Bahr said the state has hired two law firms to help with the
lawsuit, Nix Patterson LLP and Fosler Law Inc.
According to the state's contract with those firms signed by former
Attorney General-designee Ed Sniffen late last year, the firms will
"advance all costs of investigation and litigation" and will be
reimbursed only if the state wins an award by settlement or trial.
The companies would receive 20% of that award in addition to having
their costs reimbursed. [GN]
UBER CANADA: Faces Class Action Claiming $20 Million in Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Rogers has issued a national class action proceeding
claiming $20 million in damages on behalf of all persons in Canada
who have used an UberEATS promotional discount since January 1,
2015.
The class action claim alleges that Uber Canada Inc. ("UberEATS")
through its food delivery service, UberEATS, has overstated the
value of its promotional discounts by invoicing its consumers in a
misleading and deceptive manner and by overcharging sales tax to
its consumers. The claim alleges that UberEATS has done so by
charging consumers sales tax on the full purchase price of their
orders when consumers reasonably understood that sales tax would be
charged on the net discounted price of their order.
UberEATS allegedly engages in this misleading practice to induce
consumers to use its service, at the expense of its competitors and
struggling third party restaurants and to offset the cost of its
promotional discounts.
Canadians have been using food delivery services such as UberEATS
in record numbers during the COVID-19 pandemic. UberEATS operates
throughout Canada in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and has done so
since 2015. It is alleged that the amount of the various
overcharges to Canadian consumers is significant as a result of the
sheer number of orders purchased on the UberEATS platform during
the COVID-19 pandemic including those orders induced by the
enticing promotional offers.
The Representative Plaintiff, Daniel Lewis, is employed in the
hospitality industry and alleges that he has been mislead by
UberEATS' practice of taxing consumers on the full purchase price
of his orders.
"UberEATS has allegedly overstated the value of its promotional
offerings by charging unnecessary sales tax to its Canadian
consumers for its own benefit. We are in contact with UberEATS
consumers nation-wide who have been mislead by UberEATS' taxation
policy and the various charges set out on their UberEATS invoice.
Simply put, UberEATS has elected to market their promotions as a
"40% off" promotion and consumers are understandably upset when
they realize that it is really a lesser promotion when you account
for the fact that UberEATS has elected to charge full sales tax on
their order prior to applying the discount ," said Robert Ben,
Stephen Birman and Darcy Merkur, partners at Thomson Rogers.
The Claim seeks reimbursement for the amounts overpaid on behalf of
Canadian users of UberEATS, as well as punitive and aggravated
damages. [GN]
UKRAINIAN INT'L: Lawyer Says Iran's Inclusion in Suit Is a Mistake
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab, writing for Law Times, reports that with families
facing threats from the Iranian government and the unlikelihood of
ever collecting compensation from the country, it is a mistake to
include the Iranian regime in the Ukrainian International Airlines
Flight 752 class action, says Paul Miller, head of mass torts at
Howie Sacks and Henry LLP.
Miller believes a better route is to allow the Canadian Government
to assert a state-to-state claim against the Islamic Republic of
Iran and Islamic Revolutionary Guard, while seeking compensation
for the class only from Ukrainian International Airlines. He says
there is little chance of suing Iran and getting a judgment. And
with no assets in Canada, nor any diplomatic relationship between
the two countries, the judgment cannot be enforced.
"There is no doubt that the hurt and anger that the families feel
against the Iranian Regime is unimaginable," says Miller. "The acts
of Iran do need to be addressed. It is our view that it is a
serious mistake to sue the Iranian Regime on behalf of families,
especially those who have families still in Iran. The Iranian
Regime has threatened family members in Iran if they are part of a
lawsuit against the country."
On Jan. 8, 2020, 176 people were killed when Iran's Revolutionary
Guard Corps shot down a passenger airplane headed to Kiev, shortly
after it took off from Tehran's Imam Khomeini International
Airport. Of the victims, 138 had ties to Canada and 57 were
Canadians.
On Feb. 22, Superior Court Justice Benjamin Glustein certified the
proposed class action brought on behalf of the families of victims.
In December, the court had awarded carriage to a team led by class
actions and civil litigation lawyer Tom Arndt.
Arndt told Law Times he and his co-counsel are coordinating with
Iranian nationals and other class members, from around the world,
and he and his colleagues are conducting townhall meetings over
videoconference with a Farsi/Persian interpreter.
"We are working on an agreed statement of facts, jurisdiction and
applicable laws. We hope to reach consensus with the Airline on
many points and conduct discoveries this summer."
Miller says victims will be unable to get a result through the
Victims of Terrorism Act because they will be unable to prove the
downing of the plane was an act of terrorism. To qualify as a
terrorist attack, there must be political motivation and the plane
was full of Iranian citizens who had been living abroad," he says.
Had it been a plane full of Americans, it may have been another
story, Miller says.
Another indication a terrorist designation will not stick comes
from the life-insurance claims families have brought to Miller and
his colleagues.
"We specifically took on some insurance claims. People had credit
card insurance on their life. Serious money, like half a million
dollars of life insurance," he says. "If it was a terrorist attack,
that usually voids the policy. And we have not had that argument
from one insurer, because there was no evidence of it being a
terrorist attack."
Anrndt says the class action does not allege terrorism or a
terrorist attack.
Without access to the Victims of Terrorism Act, litigants must be
able to demonstrate an exception to sovereign immunity to sue Iran,
Miller says.
If the activity behind the tort is commercial in nature, sovereign
immunity does not apply.
Iran says the plane was hit because it was mistaken for a cruise
missile. Tensions were high at the time, as Iran had just fired
ballistic missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq, in retaliation for
the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. With the
country on high-alert and the military commandeering the airport,
Miller says it will be hard to argue the event took place in the
course of commercial activity.
"This was the military that fired the missile," he says. "There is
no commercial activity by Iran in the missile being fired. It has
to be a direct link. And so that's why we did not believe the
commercial exception would apply here."
To hold the Iranian government responsible for the tragedy, the
best strategy is to await the diplomatic process and the
state-to-state claim Canada will be pursuing with the UK, Sweden,
Afghanistan and Ukraine, which also lost citizens, says Miller.
[GN]
UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over 777 Engine Failure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linnea Ahlgren, writing for Simple Flying, reports that in a
class-action lawsuit filed with a Colorado court two days ago, one
of the passengers aboard United Airlines Flight UA328 claims to
have suffered emotional distress as a result of the high-profile
engine failure. The plaintiff's legal counsel claims that the
incident, strikingly similar to one from 2018, could have been
avoided if United had inspected the engine's fan blades properly.
It has hardly escaped anyone remotely interested in aviation that
on February 20th, a United Airlines Boeing 777 with registration
N772UA suffered a spectacular engine failure shortly after takeoff
from Denver, Colorado.
The 777-200's right-hand Pratt & Whitney PW4077 engine caught fire,
causing debris from the cowling to scatter over the city's suburbs,
fortunately without causing injury to life or limb. Thankfully, the
aircraft landed safely with no harm to any of its 231 passengers or
ten members of crew.
Claims of foreseeable and severe distress
However, that does not mean no damage was done, says a class-action
lawsuit filed by a passenger onboard Flight UA328, submitted to the
United States District Court of Colorado on March 7th. The
plaintiff's legal representation says in the filing that passengers
were left to 'fear for their lives' for 20 minutes, causing
foreseeable and severe emotional distress.
Distress, which attorney Jonathon Corbett claims is a direct result
of United failing to 'properly inspect and maintain its aircraft.'
The lawsuit, seen by Simple Flying, states that the plaintiff, a
resident of Carmel, Indiana, and others onboard suffered physical
symptoms including nausea, symptoms of shock and, following the
flight, insomnia.
United proud of professionalism
United Airlines was not immediately available for a request for
comment at the time of writing. However, a spokesperson for the
carrier shared with Fox that,
"Safety remains our highest priority - for our employees and our
customers. We are proud of our employees' care for our customers
and steadfast dedication to safety in our day-to-day operations and
in response to this incident.
"It is that professionalism that led most of the passengers from
flight 328 to board another flight to Honolulu later that evening.
We continue to work with federal agencies investigating this
incident and due to the ongoing investigation, we will not be able
to provide further comment at this time."
NTSB found fatigue fracture
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published an
investigative update regarding the incident on March 5th. The
agency said it had found multiple fatigue fracture origins on a fan
blade that had been fractured 7.5 inches above the base at the
trailing edge.
The blade had undergone 2,979 flight cycles (takeoffs and landings)
since its last thermoacoustic inspection in 2016. Those images had
been reexamined following a very similar incident with a United
Boeing 777-200 in 2018.
Coincidentally, that engine failure involved the same plane,
N773UA, that United used as a replacement aircraft for last month's
Denver to Honolulu flight. This fact has not gone unnoticed by the
legal council behind the class-action lawsuit now brought against
the airline. The filing states that,
"UNITED's failure to ensure that what happened in 2018 did not
happen again in 2021 is a stunning failure of reasonable safety
practices by any standard."
While no specific sum has been requested, the lawsuit says the
expected amount is likely to exceed $5 million. [GN]
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Must Face Class Action Over 401(k) Plan Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Universal
Health Services Inc. must face a certified class of 60,000 people
in a lawsuit challenging the fees and investment options in its
$1.9 billion 401(k) plan, a Philadelphia federal judge ruled on
March 8.
Universal Health argued against class certification, saying the
class members' individual investment decisions made them subject to
individual defenses under Section 404(c) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, which allows a retirement plan fiduciary to
avoid liability for losses stemming from a plan participant's
personal investment choices.
Judge Mark A. Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania disagreed. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Suit Over Doctor Sexual Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Winton, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that the
female patient vividly remembers her visit eight years ago to the
UCLA office of Dr. James Heaps. He was a respected gynecologist at
a revered medical institution. There was a female chaperone in the
examination room, but she had her back to the patient.
Without gloves, the doctor began by cupping and fondling the
patient's breast in what seemed like an overly long exam, she said.
"I thought that was a little odd," she recalled. Next, Heaps
performed a pap smear and after removing the device, she said, "he
stroked her clitoris from top to bottom. I froze. I'd never been
touched by a doctor like that."
The patient hurriedly dressed and dashed out of the office.
"I called a friend," she said. "I told her I just got molested by
my doctor." The words made her feel awful, she said, and she never
wanted to discuss it again. But after Heaps was criminally charged
in 2019 with abusing his patients, the Los Angeles woman called
UCLA to report on her own experience.
In January, a judge approved a $73 million class-action settlement
with more than 5,000 former patients of Heaps who said they were
sexually battered by the physician. In the settlement, UCLA and
Heaps, 67, who was employed at the UCLA student health center and
UCLA Medical Center from 1983 to 2019, did not admit any
wrongdoing.
But the 49-year-old patient, whose alleged experience with the
doctor dates back to 2013, said she isn't about to settle her
case.
The woman sued UCLA and Heaps along with another female patient who
alleges she too was inappropriately touched by Heaps, during an
examination in 1992. Identified as Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, the
women are suing over allegations of sexual assault, sexual battery,
emotional distress and negligence. The Times is not naming any of
the plaintiffs in keeping with its policy regarding victims of
sexual assault.
"There must be accountability," said Sandra Ribera Speed, one of
the attorneys representing the women. She said the class action
settlement approved in January might work for some victims, but
others want answers.
UCLA typically doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The settlement agreement was criticized by a state lawmaker who
wrote the law allowing accusers in the UCLA case more time to sue.
Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, said the deal undermines the
intent of Assembly Bill 3092, which took effect Jan. 1, and gives
plaintiffs in class action cases until the end of 2021 to file
lawsuits. But the settlement gives victims who want to pursue their
cases separately only 90 days to do so.
The agreement undermines the legislation "by dramatically
shortening the amount of time a victim may file a case against UCLA
and Dr. Heaps," Wicks said. Dozens of women opted out of the civil
case that resulted in the settlement agreement.
John Manly, whose firm represents more than 112 alleged victims,
said the settlement benefits only lawyers and the UC system, which
wants to keep a lid on the level of scrutiny it faces over its
knowledge of prior abuses.
The civil litigation is separate from the criminal case against
Heaps, which was expanded in August 2020 when prosecutors charged
the doctor with sexually abusing more patients. He now faces 20
felony counts, including sexual battery by fraud, sexual
exploitation of a patient, and sexual penetration of an unconscious
person.
Heaps, who has pleaded not guilty, faces more than 67 years in
prison if convicted of all charges. A preliminary hearing in the
case is slated for April.
Heaps' lawyer has said his client is not guilty of criminal charges
and maintains he acted in an appropriate manner. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Anderson Suit Prompts Sexual Assault Bill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Weiland, writing for The Michigan Daily, reports that a sexual
assault legislation prompted by the allegations against the late
Robert E. Anderson, former University of Michigan physician, was
reintroduced on Feb.19. State Rep. Ryan Berman, R-Commerce
Township, and state Rep. Karen Whitsett, D-Detroit, reintroduced
Michigan's Empowering Survivors package to the House of
Representatives, which is aimed at expanding opportunities for
victims of sexual assault in pursuing justice.
The survivor-centered justice package was originally introduced in
September 2020 at a press conference on the steps of the Michigan
Capitol Building. However, the bills were not voted on before the
end of last year because the pandemic pushed the legislature's
schedule back and delayed looking at any bills unrelated to
COVID-19. In December, Berman and Whitsett announced their plan to
reintroduce the bipartisan package in 2021.
The package is composed of two bills. The first is a government
immunity reform bill to prevent institutions from claiming immunity
when abuse or assault occurs under the guise of medical care and
the institution was aware of such abuse taking place.
The second is a statute of limitations reform bill, which will
create a one-year window from the time the laws are passed for
victims to file a suit that they were abused under the guise of
medical care, regardless of the three-year statute of limitations
during which survivors must file to allege personal injury. This
bill is similar to the 90-day window given to survivors of Larry
Nassar, former USA Gymnastics physician.
In February 2020, the University announced its investigation into
Anderson following allegations of sexual abuse. Anderson worked at
the University from the late 1960s to early 2000s as director of
the University Health Service and spent years as a top physician
for U-M athletics. Since the University's announcement, more than
100 lawsuits have been filed against the University regarding
Anderson, including one class-action suit on behalf of former
students who claim that Anderson sexually abused them during
medical examinations. University Regent Ron Weiser (R) also accused
Anderson of sexually assaulting him while he was a student in the
1960s.
In a video announcing the reintroduction of the Empowering
Survivors package, Berman explained the importance of the bills and
his determination to ensure that victims feel comfortable coming
forward.
"It's a year later, but Dr. Anderson's survivors are still seeking
justice," Berman said. "We have not wavered in our very important
support of this issue and we fully expect this legislation to
receive hearings at some point this year."
LSA sophomore Ceciel Zhong, an advocate for survivors of sexual
assault, weighed in on the bipartisan support that the legislative
package has received so far.
"Sexual assault and abuse shouldn't be a partisan problem at all,"
Zhong said. "I think that focusing on justice for survivors is not
a partisan problem, but a human rights problem to ensure that
survivors get the support that they deserve."
Zhong said the proposed bill would give survivors more time and
flexibility to seek justice.
"I think it will help to provide more time for survivors because it
extends the statute of limitations," Zhong said. "It will
definitely help to bring more justice to survivors."
This package is especially personal for Whitsett, who said in the
reintroduction video she is a survivor of sexual violence but never
reported it out of fear. Whitsett said she hopes these bills will
help survivors moving forward in holding their abusers
accountable.
"As a survivor myself, I am proud to reintroduce these bills,"
Whitsett said. "We will see this process out to the end."
When initially announcing the Empowering Survivors legislation in
September 2020, Whitsett commented on the unfortunate regularity of
survivors fearing the consequences of reporting their experience.
"It takes years for a victim traumatized by sexual assault to
address this before they come forward to report the crime if they
ever do," Whitsett said. "Fear of negative impact on career,
reputation, their interpersonal relationships -- they factor
against reporting the assault."
The U-M Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center declined to
comment, as they did not believe it was appropriate with litigation
pending and the independent investigation into Anderson still
ongoing. [GN]
UPMC: Class action Lawsuit Targets Firm, Law Firm For Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Van Osdol at wtae.com reports that a class-action lawsuit
accuses UPMC and a law firm of compromising the personal
information of thousands of patients.
Last month, law firm Charles Hilton and Associates, which does
collections for UPMC, reported a data breach affecting 36,000
patients. The firm said Social Security numbers, bank account
numbers and other personal information were hacked.
Vince Ranalli, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, just started a
food prep and delivery business so he is keeping a close eye on
finances. That's why he was alarmed when he received a letter
saying an account was opened in his name at a bank that he does not
use.
"They said whoever had done this had gotten everything from me.
They opened it with my Social Security number, my driver's license,
my address. They pretty much had all of my personal information,"
Ranalli said.
The lawsuit said Vince's dad was also targeted, receiving four
credit cards that he did not apply for.
The hack against Vince and his father came weeks after the data
breach was reported. Vince said authorities told him that was no
coincidence.
"Both the bank and law enforcement made that connection in some
way," he said.
The class-action lawsuit accuses UPMC and Charles Hilton and
Associates of negligence, invasion of privacy and other counts.
"We're seeking to curtail the problem, identify all the people
affected, recover monies for them to the extent they're entitled
and to protect their information," said attorney Joshua Ward, who
filed the suit.
UPMC and the law firm declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Vince said he worries that the breach could impact his fledgling
business.
"I really want to know where my personal information is, who else
has it. I want to be protected," he said.
Allegheny Health Network was also named initially in the lawsuit
but Ward said AHN does not use the same law firm as UPMC so it will
be dropped from the case. [GN]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. from November 9, 2020 through February 19,
2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Velodyne securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Velodyne Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) 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; (ii) that the Company was investigating the foregoing
matters; and (iii) 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, before the market opened, 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, Velodyne's Board
formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but 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.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 3, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Velodyne securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/velodynelidarinc-vldr-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-370/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 3, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR) securities between November 9, 2020 and
February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Velodyne 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/velodyne-lidar-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On February 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 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 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 3, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Robbins Geller Discloses Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action lawsuit
charging Velodyne Lidar, Inc. f/k/a Graf Industrial Corp.
(NASDAQ:VLDR; NASDAQ:VLDRW; NYSE:GRAF; NSYE:GRAFW; and NYSE:GRAFU)
and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers or acquirers
of Velodyne securities between July 2, 2020 and March 17, 2021 (the
"Class Period"), inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action was
filed in the Northern District of California and is captioned Nick
v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc. f/k/a Graf Industrial Corp., No.
21-cv-01950.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Velodyne securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Velodyne 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 Velodyne class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Velodyne class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Velodyne class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
in the Velodyne class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 2, 2021. If you wish to discuss the
Velodyne class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a
copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-velodyne-lidar-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Velodyne class action lawsuit charges Velodyne and certain of
its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Velodyne is a purveyor of lidar solutions for autonomous
vehicles, driver assistance, delivery, robotics, navigation,
mapping, and other uses.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Velodyne's iconic founder and Chairman, David Hall
("Hall"), was battling with Velodyne executives for control of the
Company; (ii) Velodyne was losing major customer contracts; (iii)
Velodyne was not on track to achieve its stated guidance and such
guidance lacked a reasonable basis in fact; and (iv) Velodyne's
internal controls over financial reporting suffered from multiple
material weaknesses.
Velodyne is a blank check company that used to be called Graf
Industrial Corp. ("Graf Industrial"). On July 2, 2020, Graf
Industrial issued a release announcing that it had entered into a
merger agreement with a lidar laser company, to be funded by cash
and new stock issuances, that valued the combined Company at $1.8
billion (the "Merger"). The release described Velodyne as a
"pioneer" in the lidar field and highlighted the continued
leadership of its "founder and industry icon," Hall, as well as the
large equity stake that would purportedly continue to be held by
Ford Motor Co. ("Ford") following the Merger. The release
represented that Velodyne was experiencing tremendous growth and on
track to achieve $100 million in revenues in 2020 and $680 million
in revenues by 2024.
On September 14, 2020, defendants issued the final proxy statement
for the Merger, which urged shareholders to vote in favor of the
deal (the "Proxy"). The Complaint alleges that the Proxy
misrepresented Velodyne's business, financials, and prospects,
claiming, inter alia, that: (a) Hall would maintain leadership of
Velodyne; (b) Ford would maintain a significant equity stake; (c)
Velodyne was continuing to achieve considerable revenue growth and
on track to achieve over $100 million in 2020 revenues; and (d)
this growth rate was secure because of the high percentage of
revenues already awarded under existing contracts. On the basis of
the defective Proxy, on September 29, 2020, shareholders voted to
approve the Merger at a special shareholders meeting. After the
Merger, the Company was renamed Velodyne.
Then, on January 7, 2021, Velodyne issued a release providing the
Company's preliminary fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial
results. The release stated that Velodyne had only achieved
approximately $94 million in annual 2020 revenues, 7% below the
Company's previous annual revenue guidance and 30% below its fourth
quarter revenue guidance. Velodyne also withdrew any future
guidance, notwithstanding defendants' prior representations
regarding the strong proportion of Company revenues purportedly
under contract and favorable business trends. On this news, the
price of Velodyne stock and warrants fell 7% and 13%,
respectively.
On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that its Board had removed
Hall as Chairman and terminated his wife's employment after an
Audit Committee investigation concluded that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall
"each behaved inappropriately with regard to Board and Company
processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity,
and candor in their dealings with Company officers and directors."
In addition, Velodyne announced that the Board formally censured
the Halls. The Halls would later publicly respond that the
Company's actions represented an "ambush" and "power grab" by
Velodyne management. On this news, the price of Velodyne stock and
warrants fell 15% and 20%, respectively.
On March 15, 2021, Velodyne issued a release announcing that it had
hired a new Chief Operating Officer ("COO"), effective immediately.
On March 17, 2021, Velodyne revealed that the Company's former COO,
Thomas Tewell, had resigned on March 14, 2021. Also on March 17,
2021, Velodyne revealed multiple material weaknesses in its annual
report. On this news, the price of Velodyne stock and warrants fell
13% and 17%, respectively, over three trading days.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities 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]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:VLDR)
for violations of Sections 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 November
9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.
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. Certain Velodyne directors failed to
maintain an attitude of respect, honesty, integrity, and candor
with the Company's officers and directors. The Company had launched
investigations into this matter. 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 Velodyne, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
https://schallfirm.com/ [GN]
VI-JON INC: Judge Tosses Hand Sanitizer Mislabeling Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theodora McCormick, Esq., of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that creative and
aggressive plaintiffs' lawyers are forever on the hunt for new
theories under which to bring potentially lucrative class action
lawsuits utilizing plaintiff-friendly state consumer protection
statutes (with California being the most favored forum). The
dietary supplement industry has been in the plaintiffs bar's
cross-hairs for more than a decade now. As the case law has evolved
and developed, supplement companies have had notable success
fighting these suits. Just recently, Judge Miller in the Southern
District of California tossed a proposed class action against
Germ-X maker Vi-Jon Inc. accusing it of mislabeling its hand
sanitizer, finding that the consumer "only pled a conjectural and
hypothetical injury" (a copy of Judge Miller's decision can be
found here), and the Ninth Circuit has made it clear that where a
consumer challenges an advertisement as false or deceptive the
plaintiff must demonstrate that there is scientific evidence
showing that the product does not provide the claimed benefit.
Nevertheless, class action false advertising lawsuits continue to
cost the supplement industry billions of dollars.
Case in point, Reckitt Benckiser LLC agreed to pay $53 million to
settle claims that it deceptively marketed a glucosamine supplement
in what the plaintiffs are describing as "the largest dietary
supplement class action settlement ever reached."
The Plaintiffs claimed that they and others were induced to buy
"Move Fee Advanced," a glucosamine supplement, based on claims made
in advertisements and on the packaging that the product treats
joint pain and stiffness. Plaintiffs filed suit in the Northern
District of California alleging that Reckitt Benckiser violated
California's CLRA, UCL, FAL, and New York General Business Law
section 349 and 350 by advertising Move Free Advanced as providing
joint health benefits that it does not provide. The parties engaged
in four years of extensive discovery culminating in a heavily
contested class certification motion. In their motion, Plaintiffs
submitted evidence showing that more than a dozen independent
studies since the late 1990s found no improvement in pain, mobility
or quality of life for patients treated with glucosamine or
chondroitin, separately or in combination. In response, Reckitt
Benckiser argued that there were too many individual factors to
certify a class or set class damages, including how individuals
interpreted the advertising, how dissatisfied individuals were with
the product, or how effective the product was on individual
customers' particular medical conditions.
Judge Vince Chhabria disagreed, and certified both a California and
New York class of buyers of Reckitt's "Move Free Advanced"
supplement, finding that "plaintiffs have submitted evidence that
Reckitt Benckiser labeled their 'Move Free' glucosamine and
chondroitin-based supplements with claims suggesting that the
supplements would improve joint functioning, but the scientific
studies show that the ingredients in the supplements do not
actually improve joint functioning."
After the class was certified, Reckitt Benckiser moved for summary
judgment on the grounds that all of Plaintiffs' claims were
preempted by the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act, that Plaintiffs could
not prove that the Move Free Advanced's advertising was false and
that Plaintiffs' full refund theory failed because Move Free
Advanced was not a completely worthless product. Judge Chhabria
again disagreed and denied Reckitt Benckiser's motion, finding that
there were material facts at issue that precluded granting summary
judgment.
Following several mediation sessions, the parties reached a
proposed settlement that will provide class members with cash
refunds for up to three purchases of Move Free Advanced for a total
of $66 without the need for proof of purchase. Alternatively,
consumers could spend up to $225 on certain Reckitt Benckiser
products. Consumers with proof of their purchases will receive
refunds for all of their purchases. If the settlement is approved,
plaintiffs' counsel will be paid up to $12.5 million in attorneys'
fees plus court costs.
Given the potentially lucrative fee awards, false advertising class
actions will continue to be a significant risk facing the dietary
supplement industry. The plaintiffs' bar closely watches government
regulatory activity and companies should anticipate and be prepared
to defend against copycat claims.
Fortunately, there are a number of steps that can help shield
dietary supplement companies from these types of lawsuit. Beyond
ensuring compliance with relevant FDA regulations, companies should
review product label and marketing materials to ensure that any
claims that they make are not misleading and have adequate
scientific support. They should also evaluate whether either their
product labeling or advertising makes any implied claims or message
that if challenged, could not be substantiated. [GN]
VIVID SEATS: Elster Suit Remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California remanded the case, STEVE ELSTER, Plaintiff
v. VIVID SEATS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07679-VC
(N.D. Cal.), to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Contra Costa.
The case involves tickets purchased on Vivid Seats for events that
were postponed or rescheduled as a result of the pandemic.
Apparently, for events that were canceled outright, people who
purchased tickets on Vivid Seats received refunds. But for events
that were merely postponed or rescheduled, Vivid Seats told
ticketholders they would not get refunds.
Elster, on behalf of himself and a class of people who purchased
such tickets, seeks relief under Section 22507 of the California
Business & Professions Code. He filed the lawsuit in state court,
and Vivid Seats has removed it to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act. The question presented by Elster's motion to
remand is whether the lawsuit satisfies CAFA's $5 million amount in
controversy requirement.
Section 22507 provides in relevant part: "The ticket price of any
event which is canceled, postponed, or rescheduled will be fully
refunded to the purchaser by the ticket seller upon request."
Therefore, if one purchases a ticket from a seller and the event
gets postponed or rescheduled, the purchaser can force the ticket
seller to reverse the transaction. That is, the purchaser can get
his/her money back from the seller, and the seller gets the ticket
back from the purchaser.
Judge Chhabria finds that Section 22507 obviously cannot be
construed as allowing the buyer to get a full refund and keep the
tickets to the postponed or rescheduled event. To have one's
tickets "fully refunded" within the meaning of the statute can only
mean that the transaction is reversed -- the purchaser get all
his/her money back and the seller gets the tickets back.
The maximum allowable recovery under the statute is therefore the
net value of the reversed transaction. Elster himself concedes
this. Because that is the maximum allowable recovery, that is how
the amount in controversy must be calculated. Specifically, the
amount in controversy must be measured by the difference between
what buyers paid for their tickets and the value of the tickets
they would be required to return.
Estimating the amount in controversy therefore requires two steps.
First, if the class prevailed, the remedy would be to present class
members with the choice of keeping their tickets or getting a
refund. The evidence submitted by both sides suggests that the
percentage of buyers who choose refunds would be significant. And
Vivid Seats provided evidence that the gross value of all the
tickets for these events is approximately $18 million. From this
evidence, the Judge holds it is reasonable to assume that the gross
recovery of the class members would exceed $5 million, because to
reach this threshold only 28% of the class members would need to
opt for refunds.
But because the statute contemplates reversal of the transaction
rather than a windfall to the buyer, the Judge says the estimate
discussed is inadequate. After all, when a class member returns
their ticket, they are returning something of value, even if it may
no longer be worth the full price they paid for it. The show has
not been canceled outright; it has merely been rescheduled or
postponed. Thus, at the second step, the Judge must reduce the
gross amount of the refunds by the value of the returned tickets. V
ivid Seats has provided no estimate (and no evidence from which to
make an estimate) of the value of returned tickets. So on this
record, any finding as to the true amount in controversy would be
pure speculation.
Vivid Seats contends that it is premature to consider the value of
the returned tickets because Elster's complaint does not mention
them -- he asks generically for a "refund" without specifying that
"refund" in this context means reversal of the transaction rather
than getting the money back plus keeping what was bought. In Vivid
Seats' view, that means the value of the returned tickets is a
factual defense that must be litigated at a later stage and may not
be considered in estimating the amount in controversy.
Judge Chhabria holds that the jurisdictional concern stems from the
limitations of the statutory remedy itself rather than from efforts
to predict the most likely outcome. That the complaint does not
mention the return of tickets is irrelevant, because the statute it
invokes requires their return.
Vivid Seats also asserts it would not actually receive any returned
tickets, because it is not a "ticket seller" for purposes of
Section 22507 but merely an "intermediary" between buyers and
sellers. It seems to be implying that if the Plaintiffs prevailed,
the tickets would be returned to their original seller even while
Vivid Seats is required to pay the refund to the buyers.
The Judge holds it makes no sense. The statute contemplates the
reversal of a transaction between a ticket seller and a ticket
buyer. Vivid Seats either is or is not that ticket seller. If
Vivid Seats is not a ticket seller, it will not receive any
returned tickets, but neither will it pay a refund. If it is a
ticket seller, it will both owe the refund and have the right to
receive the tickets in return. The theory of the complaint is that
Vivid Seats is a ticket seller. The amount in controversy must be
estimated with reference to that theory of liability.
Judge Chhabria concludes that Section 22507 limits the amount at
stake for both parties to the net value of the refunds less the
value of the returned tickets. Because there is no information on
the record about the value of those returned tickets, he cannot
conclude that it has jurisdiction under CAFA. The case is
therefore remanded to the Superior Court of Contra Costa County.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/wdrfnpur from Leagle.com.
VIVINT INC: Fitzhenry Files TCPA Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of
a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Vivint
Inc., DSI Distributing Inc. doing business as: DSI Systems, John
Doe Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00789-DCN (D.S.C., March 19,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Vivint Smart Home, Inc. -- https://www.vivint.com/ -- is a public
smart home company in the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
WARTBURG COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in Bremer County against Wartburg
College. Plaintiff Sydney Warner, on behalf of others affected by
the pandemic, is asking for tuition and other fees to be refunded.
Warner is a music student, who along with others feel they paid too
much for what they were given after COVID-19 restrictions were put
in place on campus. Wartburg moved to online instruction on March
18, 2020, along with many other colleges and universities across
the country.
An attorney working on the case says he's confident in getting the
students their money.
"We're only looking at cases that we think are viable and that we
think can be successful and make a difference for the students,"
attorney Bart Goplerud said.
There have been many lawsuits of this nature, which have been
dismissed across the country. The majority of those cases being
focused on how education was of lesser quality during the remote
learning phase of the pandemic.
The lawsuit against Wartburg is a bit different.
"Those cases sought to obtain a tuition refund based on that there
was a lesser education, or that the quality wasn't the same,"
Goplerud said, "Whereas here, our claim is focused on the in person
opportunities, or the in-person experiences, that were promised by
the colleges or universities."
The lawsuit lists many on-campus experiences such as face-to-face
instruction, extracurricular activities, access to on-campus
facilities, and hands-on learning.
"They shut down the gyms, they shut down the labs, they shut down
the libraries. They shut down all the opportunities for the student
to experience campus life," he said.
A semester at Wartburg College can cost over $21,000, not including
any extra class fees.
Students who were forced to finish their 2020 Spring semester
online. The lawsuit contends their college experience was in no way
equivalent to what it was before the pandemic.
"While the colleges and the universities did an excellent job in
protecting the students from COVID exposure, in doing so they shut
down the opportunity to enjoy that on-campus personal experience,"
Goplerud said.
Room and board are currently not included to be refunded in this
lawsuit, but could be added after additional review.
Wartburg is offering a tuition-free fifth year for any full-time
2020-2021 senior and freshman.
The ongoing discussion or any type of resolution could take
anywhere between 18 months and 4 years.
KWWL did reach out to Wartburg College for comment, but were unable
to speak on pending litigation. [GN]
WHOLE FOODS: Kekish Hits Artificial Vanilla in Coffee Creamer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ulana Kekish, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-01562 (S.D. N.Y., February 22, 2021), seeks to
recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs
for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act
and New York General Business Law.
Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets,
labels and sells organic almond milk coffee creamer under its 365
Everyday Value brand. Kekish alleges that their vanilla-flavored
coffee creamer contains vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite
its labelling indicating "naturally flavored." [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
WILLOWS INN: Settles Wage Theft Class Action Lawsuit for $600,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that The Willows Inn, a nationally
acclaimed restaurant on Lummi Island that has been accused of
underpaying its employees, has agreed to pay $600,000 to settle a
class-action lawsuit over wage theft accusations.
As part of the preliminary settlement, management at The Willows
Inn has not admitted to any wrongdoing, the Seattle Times reported.
The two employees who filed the lawsuit are bound by a
non-disclosure agreement from discussing the dispute.
But in the lawsuit filed in Whatcom County Superior Court in 2017,
the plaintiffs' attorneys alleged that The Willows Inn had violated
state labor and wage laws including the withholding of tips and
overtime pay, and in some cases, that it did not pay employees at
all for shifts worked.
For some employees, including those who cook, clean and service The
Willows Inn, all the hours worked amounted to "less than minimum
wage," according to the suit.
Under the settlement, the 99 non-supervisory employees identified
as members of the class-action suit will recover about 75% of the
unpaid wage claims, which the parties estimate will total
$600,000.
In a phone interview with the newspaper, restaurant chef and owner
Blaine Wetzel denied the allegations, but said his attorneys
advised him to settle or risk a long court battle that would
ultimately cost much more than $600,000 in legal fees.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to comment. [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Workhorse Group, Inc. ("Workhorse Group" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
WKHS) from July 7, 2020 through February 23, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Workhorse Group securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Workhorse Group
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") launched the
USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, which was a
competitive multiyear acquisition process to replace approximately
165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse Group was one of the
companies aiming to secure the NGDV contract, worth approximately
$6.3 billion.
On February 23, 2021, the USPS issued a press release announcing
that Oshkosh Defense had won the NGDV contract - not Workhorse
Group.
On this news, Workhorse Group's stock price fell $14.88 per share,
or 47% to close at $16.47 on February 23, 2021. The price continued
to fall in after-hours trading and opened on February 23, 2021, at
$14/07, a drop of over 50% from the previous open.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was merely hoping that USPS was
going to select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery
Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was
the case; (2) the Company had concealed the fact that electrifying
the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically
expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Workhorse Group's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Workhorse Group securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/workhorsegroupinc-wkhs-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-376/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.[GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Investors File Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gauntner, writing for WFMJ, reports that an Ohio company that
recently lost a bid for a multi-billion-dollar contract to make the
next generation of postal delivery trucks is named as a defendant
in a class action lawsuit filed by investors claiming U.S.
securities violations.
The civil action filed in U.S. District Court on March 8 alleges
that the Workhorse Group and its officers made false and misleading
statements regarding its effort to win the $6.3 billion contract to
manufacture 165,000 vehicles that eventually was awarded to Oshkosh
Defense of Wisconsin.
Unlike the Workhorse bid which was for all-electric vehicles,
Oshkosh said ten percent of its trucks would be electric while the
remaining vehicles would be powered by conventional internal
combustion engines that could be retrofitted to keep up with
technology.
The complaint claims that Workhorse failed to disclose that it was
"merely hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as
its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle and had no assurance or
indication from USPS that this was the case."
In addition, the suit alleges that Workhorse concealed information
that electrifying the entire postal service fleet would be
impractical and expensive.
When the postal service announced the Oshkosh award last month,
securities of Workhorse fell $14.88 per share, or 47%, to close at
$16.47. The price continued to drop in after-hours trading and
opened on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07, a fall of over
50% from the previous open, which, according to the complaint
damaged those who invested in Workhorse since July.
The complaint says Workhorse executives were involved in making
false and misleading public statements that inflated the value of
the stock.
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial to determine the amount of alleged
damages to investors.
The suit does not yet list the number of investors who could join
the class action.
Workhorse has not yet filed a response.
The lawsuit was filed on the same day that Workhorse stock value
experienced a slight rebound amid several news items.
On March 8, Workhorse shares temporarily rose to $16.73 before
closing at $15.52 per share.
The increase was accompanied by news that Congressman Tim Ryan
(OH-13) urged the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to
investigate a $54 million stock purchase made a day before
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy announced a contract for the Oshkosh
Corporation worth $6 billion to replace the United States Postal
Service's fleet of vehicles.
Congressman Ryan, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, and Senator Sherrod
Brown wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to halt the
postal truck contract until a review can be conducted on whether
inappropriate political influence was involved in the decision.
In addition, Rep. Ryan has signed on as a co-sponsor to the Postal
Vehicle Modernization Act submitted by Representative Jared Huffman
(D-CA).
Huffman, a member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, says the legislation would provide $6 billion in
funding to electrify the United States Postal Service's vehicle
fleet.
"By electrifying the Postal Service fleet, we have an opportunity
to boost our economy, slash emissions, and save the crumbling
Postal Service," said Huffman." The benefits and need for action
could not be clearer – President Biden himself has called for
complete federal vehicle electrification."
If passed, the legislation would require that at least 75% of the
new fleet purchased be electric/zero-emission.
Workhorse CEO Duane Hughes said the company met on March 3 with
USPS officials to discuss bid process rules and further specifics
of the bid selection process.
"We will continue to follow the proper due course procedures as
defined by the USPS and will also look to other options available
to us," said Workhorse CEO Duane Hughes." In the interim, we have
retained the services of leading legal and corporate advisory
firms, including Akin Gump Straus Hauer & Feld LLP and Mound Cotton
Wollan & Greengrass LLP, to identify our options and pursue them
effectively."
Steve Burns, the former CEO of Workhorse and now the CEO of
Lordstown Motors said in 2019 that if Workhorse won the postal
contract, he would try to convince Workhorse to manufacture the
postal vehicles in portions of the same former General Motors
Assembly plant in Lordstown where LMC is planning to make the
all-electric Endurance pickup trucks.
In 2019, Workhorse signed a three-year intellectual property
licensing agreement with Lordstown Motors regarding the Workhorse
W-15 electric pickup truck in exchange for an initial equity stake
of 10% in LMC. [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
Workhorse Group, Inc. (WKHS)
Class Period: 7/7/2020 - 2/23/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 7, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wkhs/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via 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 KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS)
between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Workhorse
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Workhorse class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2042.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: ((1) the Company was merely hoping that USPS was going to
select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle,
and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the
case; (2) the Company had concealed the fact that - as revealed by
the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to
select an electric vehicle - electrifying the USPS's entire fleet
would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a
result, defendants' statements about Workhorse'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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2042.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
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]
XL FLEET: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on March 8 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Suh v. XL
Fleet Corp., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-02002) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet Corp.
("XL Fleet" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) securities between October
2, 2020 and March 2, 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 XL Fleet 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/xl-fleet-corp/. 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 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research 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 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 stock price fell $2.09, 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, 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 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 XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to
inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales
and backlog; (2) that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL
featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (3)
that XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered
only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) that XL lacks the supply chain
and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet 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]
[*] Auto Insurance Companies Urged to Refund Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Rotberg, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that now that
President Joe Biden's $1,400 stimulus checks are headed for a final
vote in Congress, consumer advocates are putting renewed pressure
on auto insurance companies to provide some more COVID stimulus
cash of their own.
In a set of class-action lawsuits filed in Nevada last month,
plaintiffs claim that 10 leading auto insurers have kept premiums
unreasonably high during the pandemic, a period when restrictions
on business activity and other parts of normal daily life have
caused overall driving to drop well below prepandemic levels,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
And that's led to staggering increases in profits for auto
insurers, according to research by consumer advocates. Progressive
reported an 82% increase in net income, while Geico's pretax
earnings tripled during the second and third quarters of 2020, just
to name a couple.
Many insurers already have given customers some discounts on
premiums, ranging from small one-time refunds to 15% to 25%
reductions on some 2020 monthly bills, according to information
contained in the Nevada lawsuits.
"On three occasions in 2020, USAA returned dividends totaling $1.07
billion to all auto insurance policyholders due to fewer drivers on
the road because of the ongoing pandemic," a spokesman for USAA,
one of the defendants in the lawsuits, told The Associated Press.
Still, many Americans may be wondering: Why am I paying full price
for insurance now, in 2021, when my car still sits in the driveway
and my insurance company is still reaping the benefits?
Here's how you can try to get more relief from your insurer, plus a
few other strategies to slash your car insurance bill when money is
tight.
In December, the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for
Economic Justice sent a public letter to state insurance
commissioners, saying auto insurers should be required to deliver a
new round of refunds to policyholders.
An analysis by the two groups showed crashes down 31% since the
beginning of the pandemic compared to the year prior.
The Nevada lawsuits -- which name as defendants State Farm, USAA,
Geico, Acuity, Liberty Mutual, Farmers, Progressive, Travelers,
Nationwide and Allstate -- contend that the trend has continued
into 2021.
So can I get free money from my insurance company?
An analysis by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education
Fund took a state-by-state look at how insurance companies repaid
parked motorists last spring.
"Regardless how much each company profited, the majority of
insurers didn't give back more than half of one month's premium,"
the consumer watchdog says.
But some companies didn't issue refunds or cut rates unless
customers called and asked.
That means you could get free cash just by contacting your
insurance agent. With pressure mounting, your insurer might be open
to reviewing your premium, assuming you're still driving less than
ever. Make note of how your habits have changed, such as the
distance you're not driving while you work from home.
If your insurance company won't give you a pandemic discount, there
are still a number of ways to cut down on your insurance bill.
Drop optional coverage
Some auto insurance policies include extras that you may be able to
do without for a while. For example, can you cut out the option
that pays for a rental car while yours is at the repair shop?
Removing these extras can save you a few bucks, just make sure
you're still meeting your state's minimum liability coverage and
are still protected in case of an accident during those few trips
to the grocery store.
Switching insurance providers
If your insurer won't give you a break, maybe you can find a new
one that will.
Even if you can't switch to a company with pandemic discounts,
shopping around for the best rate can still help you lower your
bill.
If you haven't comparison-shopped over the last six months, you
could be wasting more than $1,000 per year. With a free
quote-comparing service, you could find the best price in minutes.
Raise your deductible
If the risks of a claim are lower, you may consider raising your
deductible -- that's the amount you pay out of pocket on a claim
before your insurer takes care of the rest.
A higher deductible will save you money on monthly premiums, but it
could lead to more costs if you do end up in an accident.
Suspend your car insurance
In some cases it may be possible to put your insurance on hold if
you've completely stopped driving during the pandemic.
This path could be tricky -- it could result in fines or a
suspended registration from the DMV, and it may not be possible at
all if you're making car payments to the bank.
You'll also need to store your vehicle in a safe and secure spot,
because you won't have coverage from nondriving-related losses,
like theft.
What if I need even more savings?
If saving on car insurance isn't enough, here are a few more ways
to give your bank account a boost until the economy bounces back:
Slash your other insurance bills. By doing some simple comparison
shopping using online tools, you can save hundreds on your
homeowners insurance and find affordable life insurance.
Develop a side hustle. You can turn your hobby into a lucrative
side gig using the world's largest online marketplace for digital
services. Just create a profile describing your in-demand skills,
and see who comes calling.
Invest your spare change. Using a popular investing app you can
automatically accumulate "change" every time you use your debit
card and let the app invest the money for you in a diversified
portfolio of stocks, bonds and other reliable investments. You
won't even notice the deposits, but you will notice the returns.
[GN]
[*] JND Legal Named Best Class Action Claims Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration ("JND"), the U.S. leader in legal
management and administration services, has again been named as the
Best Class Action Claims Administrator by U.S. attorneys and legal
service providers, as published in the National Law Journal's "Best
of 2021" annual reader survey. JND has been recognized as a leader
in claims administration every year since its establishment,
ranking in numerous national and regional American Lawyer Media
("ALM") "Best of" surveys, including the National Law Journal
("NLJ"), Legal Times and the New York Law Journal.
The NLJ "Best of 2021" is the 10th annual edition of the national
survey and lists the nation's top providers across more than 60
legal service categories. The survey recognizes best-in-class
service providers and functions as a vendor guide for law firms and
businesses in search of peer-approved legal products and services.
The "Best of" survey is open to readers of the Journal, which has a
print readership of 54,000 and a digital newsletter subscription
base of 76,000. Survey winners are determined by popular vote.
"JND is honored to have been recognized as the nation's best class
action claims administrator," says JND's CEO and Co-Founder,
Jennifer Keough. "We've hired the best in the industry and expanded
our teams several times over to accommodate a steady influx of
high-profile cases. As confirmed by this award, our firm has set
the national standard for claims administration and legal service
delivery."
In 2020, the legal community voted JND a Best Claims Administrator
in three separate ALM reader surveys, and JND was inducted into the
New York Law Journal "Best of 2020" Hall of Fame for having placed
three years in a row. In past surveys, the firm has also ranked for
"Best Legal Notice Advertising and Services" and "Best End-to-End
E-Discovery Solution Provider."
About JND Legal Administration
JND Legal Administration -- http://www.JNDLA.com-- is a legal
management and administration company trusted by law firms,
government agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation.
Founded in 2016 and led by industry veterans Jennifer Keough, Neil
Zola and David Isaac, JND delivers best-in-class legal services in
the areas of class action settlement administration, mass tort
claims and lien resolution, eDiscovery, legal notice programs,
government services and healthcare solutions. The company is backed
by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California, Minnesota,
New York, Washington and Washington, D.C.
[*] Judge Approves Settlement of Nearly $175,000 in FCRA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
esrcheck.com reports that on February 16, 2021, a federal
magistrate judge in California approved a settlement of nearly
$175,000 in a class action lawsuit claiming a violation of the
"stand-alone" disclosure requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) which requires a person seeking to procure a consumer
report for employment purposes to provide job applicants with a
"clear and conspicuous disclosure… in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure."
The FCRA 15 U.S.C Section 1681 was enacted by Congress in 1970 to
promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs). The
FCRA also protects consumers from the willful and/or negligent
inclusion of inaccurate information in their consumer reports, and
regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer
information, including consumer credit information.
In the case of Taafua v. Quantum Global Technologies (No.
18-cv-06602-VKD), Plaintiff Paniani Taafua obtained employment with
Defendant Quantum Global Technologies, LLC (QGT) which required
each job applicant to sign a disclosure form authorizing QGT to
obtain a consumer report from a third-party background screening
company. However, the form also included a liability waiver in
addition to the consumer report disclosure.
Plaintiff claimed the inclusion of the liability waiver violated
the FCRA and that he "was confused by the standard disclosure
authorization form and did not understand that [QGT] would be
requesting a consumer report as defined in the FCRA." Plaintiff
filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and over 1,000 other job
applicants. The parties agreed to a total settlement of $174,980,
which was approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.
Class action lawsuits for alleged violations of the FCRA have
become all too common and can result in monetary awards in the
thousands and even millions of dollars. In 2020 alone, FCRA class
action lawsuit settlements were reached for $4.75 million, $4.25
million, $1.28 million, $500,000, $220,000, and $120,000. In
addition, an $18 million settlement was proposed and an "excessive"
$60 million damages award was reduced by an appeals court.
In January 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) -
the government agency that enforces the FCRA - released a
"Taskforce on Federal Consumer Financial Law Report" (Volume I and
Volume II) that made recommendations on how to improve consumer
protection in the financial marketplace including recommending that
Congress amend the FCRA to impose appropriate limits on monetary
awards in FCRA class action lawsuits.
It stated: "Without appropriate caps, damage claims can create
bet-the-company litigation over claims out of all proportion to
consumer harm. The FCRA sets statutory damages for a willful
violation of any provision of the Act in an amount not less than
$100 or more than $1,000, in addition to unlimited punitive
damages, plus court costs and attorney fees. It is not clear to the
Taskforce why Congress omitted a class action damage cap in the
FCRA."
The CFPB report continued: "Because the FCRA was among the first
consumer financial protection laws Congress adopted, a clear
precedent for capping class action damages had not yet been set . .
. Whatever the reason for the original absence of a cap on class
awards, the Taskforce can see no reason to subject CRAs, users of
consumer reports, employers, merchants, and other businesses to
unlimited potential liability."
FCRA lawsuits will continue to serve as legal compliance signposts
for employers conducting background checks on job applicants,
according to leading global background check provider Employment
Screening Resources® (ESR), which compiled the 14th annual "ESR
Top Ten Background Check Trends" for 2021. Since 2008, ESR has
annually selected the top emerging and influential trends in the
background screening industry.
Employment Screening Resources® (ESR) - which was ranked the
number one screening firm by HRO Today in 2020 - offers two
complimentary white papers about "Common Ways Consumer Reporting
Agencies are Sued Under the FCRA" and "Common Ways Prospective or
Current Employees Sue Employers Under the FCRA" to help CRAs and
employers comply with the FCRA. To learn more about ESR, visit
www.esrcheck.com.
NOTE: Employment Screening Resources® (ESR) does not provide or
offer legal services or legal advice of any kind or nature. Any
information on this website is for educational purposes only. [GN]
[*] Pakistan Competition Laws Aim to Benefit Consumers
------------------------------------------------------
Dr Ahsan Laliwala, writing for Money Matters, reports that it is a
universally accepted fact that the prime objective and beneficiary
of competition laws are consumers or more precisely general
citizens of a country and that's why are termed as consumer welfare
law falling in ambit of social welfare legislation. These laws
benefit citizens through lower prices of goods, better quality of
product, continued availability of supply and innovation thrive.
It is one of the major source for state to address rising economic
and social inequality and answers to the greatest weakness in
capitalist society i.e. 'rich getting richer and poor getting
poorer'. An inefficient competition law or its implementation leads
to situation where cartel of rich people/organizations achieve
their goals at the cost of the consumer and ordinary layman,
directly or indirectly and that's why heavily falls on the poor
people, labors, employees i.e. the scattered and unorganized masses
who neither have resources nor opportunity to increase their
prices/revenue parallel to the opposite stronger sides.
The aim of competition law is not only punitive but also
discontinuance and deterrence of anti-competitive activities and
behavior along with appropriate equalize for direct and indirect
victims. Today the legislative, administrative and judicial system
of developed world gone one step ahead by permitting private
enforcement along with public enforcement of competition cases.
There laws and regulations not only provides claim of damages by
victims but all the convenience require to prove claim by private
victims, such as presumptions in their favor, commencement of time
limits for claim, class action, combining victims through opt-in
and opt-out mechanism.
Cartelisation is considered one of the worst form of antitrust and
anti competition attitude and that's why termed as 'hard core
cartel' by competition experts. Among the severe penalties imposed
world over as well as by Competition Commission of Pakistan; hard
core cartel is the major head followed by deceptive marketing
practices. However, regrettably CCP decisions are yet far from the
standards of debate and analysis at judicial and quasi-judicial
stages which it deserves and as done in other countries of the
world to achieve the objective of law and social and economic
equilibrium in society.
Most regrettably the legal and human right of the accused before
determination of guilt by an independent forum along with
presumption of innocence till proved guilty; does not go very well
with the objective of competition laws at least this social welfare
law; more specifically considering the over-burdened courts by
pendency, absence of experts on subject and procedural lapses on
part of authorities.
Taking the benefit of these obstacles; cartelization achieves its
objective of increase profits by raising prices at the cost of
dispersed consumers; at least under the garb and plan to seek
protection through interim injunction.
Since the ultimate monetary benefit is so humongous that even the
colossal cost of litigation bothers very little for cartel
players.
The principles of grant of interim injunction are almost universal
throughout the world i.e. comparison of prima facie case, balance
of convenience and irreparable loss between the two sides of
litigation. However, in anti-competition matters and specifically
in Cartel cases; it needs to be distinguished that it's not the CCP
or any other authority which is defendant; rather the poor and
weaker class of the country are on the other side as defendant. In
other words, its Cartel vs. disadvantaged and mediocre class.
Accordingly, considering the legal right of accused seller on one
side and balance of convenience and irreparable loss on other side;
the honorable courts while granting interim injunction in cartel
cases order the Plaintiffs to monthly deposit with the Nazir of
court, alleged price differential along with list of the buyers,
till the time of final decision.
Only this mechanism will ensure the achievement of true objective
of Competition law as well as balance between the two sides.
Sympathy of this equilibrium is necessary considering the
un-compensable loss suffered by general citizens and lack of
identifiable victims in Cartel cases; specially when the pending
matter is merely of legal lacuna, procedural lapses or challenge to
the statutory appointments.
On the other hand, the competition authority needs to equip with
latest trends in cartel investigation, advocate general public,
specially consumer welfare bodies to participate in such
litigation. [GN]
[*] U.S. & Friendly Gov'ts Must Understand TPLF Security Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tarun Krishna Kumar, writing for Defense One, reports that imagine
there's an American company about to win a hotly contested tender
to build telecommunications infrastructure in an African country.
Suddenly, the firm is hit by a class-action lawsuit back home
alleging malfeasance and backdoors in its hardware. After months of
legal wrangling, the lawsuit is dismissed. But the damage is done:
the tender has long since been awarded to a government-controlled
enterprise from a competitor state.
The courts have always been thought of as a key line of defense
against malign foreign influence campaigns and espionage. However,
the rise of phenomena like third-party litigation funding threaten
to flip this equation, allowing foreign actors to weaponize the
legal system for their own influence objectives.
TPLF is the funding of lawsuits by third parties with no direct
connection to a dispute. In these suits, the often-substantial
costs of litigation are borne not by the party that claims harm and
files the suit but by someone else. With this funding comes the
spectre of influence. By allowing unrelated (and usually
unregulated) third parties to have a stake in legal proceedings,
TPLF adds a new dimension to the foreign influence debate. It
offers an opaque and protected channel for funders, backed by
foreign state and non-state actors, to initiate, control, or
influence proceedings of strategic interest.
Particularly when costs are underwritten, parties need not play
(i.e., sue) to win. Deployed strategically, litigation can be used
for other purposes such as to delay policy or commercial processes,
harass, embarrass, or to obtain confidential information. Expecting
such abuses, most legal systems contain built-in safeguards against
malicious or vexatious litigation. However, these were never
formulated to account for sophisticated campaigns emanating from
abroad.
While global consensus on how TPLF should be regulated is still
emerging, one study estimated a 414 percent rise in U.S. litigation
funding between 2013 and 2017. This trend has been reflected
globally, with the TPLF sector estimated to be worth $4.1 billion
by 2027, while also expanding to new realms such as arbitration. As
a result, even as stakeholders debate the pros and cons of TPLF,
there is an urgent need for national security perspectives to form
a greater part of the discourse.
For instance, while divisive debates on TPLF transparency continue,
and courts have begun to mandate disclosures, no consistent
practice has emerged. Many disclosure requirements are limited in
scope and only focus on disclosures around the existence of TPLF
arrangements and the identities of funders. As funders can be
private entities, there is often no visibility one level up: of the
funder's own investors or patrons. These could easily be foreign
state actors or - more likely - state-controlled entities and
private sector conduits.
In addition, many attempts at transparency (including proposed
legislation) are premised to apply only where funders have a right
to receive a share of the damages awarded by a court. Such a
requirement would not apply to a funder not looking to receive
financial reward in return for monetary or strategic assistance. If
a foreign state underwrites a lawsuit with no expectation of a
return, transparency requirements would be unlikely to be
triggered. This opacity is compounded as it is unclear if such
foreign-origin TPLF would trigger other reporting requirements -
such as under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the United
States.
In many jurisdictions, TPLF operates in a regulatory vacuum. While
legal best practice and TPLF self-regulatory materials counsel
against funders exercising control over the conduct of litigation,
these are neither binding nor universal.
Overall, the haphazard manner in which guidance has emerged,
coupled with lack of reference to strategic threats suggests that
there has been insufficient discourse around TPLF from national
security perspectives. This is due, in part, to rules around the
conduct of legal proceedings traditionally being the realm of the
judiciary and professional regulators at the state level. But the
risks from TPLF require broader consideration – including as to
whether it may be more effective to treat TPLF, in certain defined
cases involving a foreign connection, as investment transactions or
foreign lobbying. This would open the door to tweaking existing
frameworks such as FARA to bring greater transparency around TPLF
as far as strategically sensitive subjects are concerned.
Tangible progress may therefore require statutory intervention or,
at very least, regulatory guidance mandating better due diligence,
reporting, or record-keeping requirements for legal representatives
-- likely the optimal point of regulation.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that regulation in
the sphere involves a chicken-and-egg problem. Without transparency
to unmask foreign influence through legal channels, it is difficult
to determine if the latter actually occurs. However, when states
and private actors acknowledge the overt use of legal systems to
project influence and achieve strategic objectives, it is not a
stretch to assume that the same channel is also resorted to more
covertly.
Only deeper study, discourse, and evidence-gathering around the
threats to national security from TPLF will lead to meaningful
consideration of the risks it poses -- and whether they rise to
justifying policy intervention. If nothing else, such inquiry can
also have the effect of improving overall trust in TPLF. But to
disregard it leaves our legal systems vulnerable and ignores what
could become, or already is, a critical battlefield in the fight
against malign foreign influence.
Tarun Krishnakumar is a consultant researcher with the Foreign
Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International
Policy. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in the United
States and abroad. All views expressed are personal. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bausch Health Faces Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. has been named in a number of product
liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower(R) body powder
product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Due to dismissals, only twenty-eight (28) of
such product liability suits currently remain pending, and these
twenty-eight (28) matters are subject to the Johnson & Johnson
indemnification.
"Potential liability (including its attorneys' fees and costs)
arising out of the covered Shower to Shower(R) lawsuits filed
against the Company is subject to certain indemnification
obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company, and legal
fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. The Company and
Johnson & Johnson reached an agreement on April 17, 2019, regarding
the scope of the indemnification relating to the majority of the
Shower to Shower® matters (the "Covered Matters") and the Company
has dismissed the demand for arbitration that the Company filed
against Johnson & Johnson to assert its rights to indemnification.
Johnson & Johnson will fully indemnify the Company in the Covered
Matters, which include: (i) personal injury and products liability
actions arising from alleged exposure to Shower to Shower® prior
to March 2020 and (ii) consumer fraud, consumer protection, false
advertising or other regulatory actions arising out of the
manufacture, use, or sale of Shower to Shower(R) up to and
including September 9, 2012. The Company does not believe that the
Covered Matters will have a material impact on the Company's
financial results going forward.
"The various lawsuits include a number of cases, either originally
filed in or transferred to the In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum
Powder Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation 2738, pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
("MDL"). The Company and Bausch Health US were first named in a
lawsuit filed directly into the MDL alleging that the use of the
Shower to Shower(R) product caused the plaintiff to develop ovarian
cancer. The plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of all claims against
the Company and Bausch Health US in that matter without prejudice.
The Company has subsequently been named in one additional lawsuit,
originally filed in the District of Puerto Rico and subsequently
transferred into the MDL, but has not been served in that case. The
Company has also been named in eighteen additional lawsuits filed
directly into the MDL that have also not yet been served.
"These lawsuits also include a number of matters filed in the
Superior Court of Delaware and the Superior Court of New Jersey
alleging that the use of Shower to Shower(R) caused the plaintiffs
to develop ovarian cancer. Nearly all of these actions have been
voluntarily dismissed. Presently, two cases remain pending in New
Jersey and one in Delaware. One of the New Jersey cases has not yet
been served. The allegations in these cases generally include
failure to warn, design defect, negligence, gross negligence,
breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert
in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, and
punitive damages.
"In addition, these lawsuits also include a number of cases filed
in certain state courts in the United States (including the
Superior Courts of California, Delaware and New Jersey); the
District Court of Louisiana; the Supreme Court of New York (Niagara
County); the District Court of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; the South
Carolina Court of Common Pleas (Richland County); the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas (Cuyahoga County); and the District Court of Nueces
County, Texas (transferred to the asbestos multidistrict litigation
docket in the District Court of Harris County, Texas for pre-trial
purposes) alleging use of Shower to Shower(R) and other products
resulted in the plaintiffs developing mesothelioma. The Company has
been successful in obtaining voluntary dismissals in most of these
cases or the plaintiffs have not opposed summary judgment.
Presently, four cases remain pending in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, and one case in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, in which a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without
Prejudice has been agreed to between the parties. The allegations
in these cases generally include design defect, manufacturing
defect, failure to warn, negligence, and punitive damages, and in
some cases breach of express and implied warranties,
misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The damages sought by
the various plaintiffs include compensatory damages, including
medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, and loss of
consortium. In addition, plaintiffs seek compensation for pain and
suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical
impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre-
and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.
"Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada
against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court
of Quebec). The Company also acquired the rights to the Shower to
Shower(R) product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September
2012. In the British Columbia matter, the plaintiff sought to
certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in British
Columbia and Canada who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson's
Baby Powder or Shower to Shower(R), including their estates,
executors and personal representatives, and is alleging that the
use of this product increases certain health risks. On November 7,
2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to
certify a class as to the Company or Shower to Shower(R), and at
this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. In the Quebec
matter, the plaintiff sought to certify a proposed class action on
behalf of persons in Quebec who have used Johnson & Johnson's Baby
Powder or Shower to Shower(R), as well as their family members,
assigns and heirs, and is alleging negligence in failing to
properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to
remove the products from the market in a timely manner. A
certification (also known as authorization) hearing was held in the
Quebec matter and the Court certified (or as stated under Quebec
law, authorized) the bringing of a class action by a representative
plaintiff on behalf of people in Quebec who have used Johnson &
Johnson's Baby Powder and/or Shower to Shower(R) in their perineal
area and have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and/or family
members, assigns and heirs. The plaintiffs in these actions are
seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive
damages.
"In accordance with the indemnification agreement, Johnson &
Johnson will continue to vigorously defend the Company in each of
the remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject
to a grant of summary judgment."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/31fW1W4
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,138 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is one of a number of defendants in cases involving
29,138 pending claims filed in various state and federal courts
that allege injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos as
of December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Of the 29,138 pending claims as of December
31, 2020, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of
which approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were
filed over 15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court
orders.
"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals.
"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) by us for the years ended December 31,
2020, 2019 and 2018 totaled $50.9 million, $66.2 million and $88.8
million, respectively. Results for 2020 were impacted by court
closures and significantly reduced trial related activity in
jurisdictions throughout the United States due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Assuming a successful and comprehensive implementation of
a COVID-19 vaccine program, we expect activity in the tort system
to begin returning to a more normal pace in the second half of
2021. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense
costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort
system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system
activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation
from period to period. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not
made until all releases and other required documentation are
received by us, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and
defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment
practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess
layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements.
Our total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of
funds received from insurers, for the years ended December 31,
2020, 2019 and 2018 totaled $31.1 million, $41.5 million and $63.9
million, respectively.
"Cumulatively through December 31, 2020, we have resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 141,000 claims. The related
settlement cost incurred by us and our insurance carriers is
approximately $680 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $4,800. The average settlement cost
per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019
and 2018 was $13,900, $15,800, and $11,300, respectively. Because
claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost
per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large
group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding
settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes
from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in our periodic review of our estimated asbestos liability. For a
discussion regarding the four most significant factors affecting
the liability estimate."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/30XDdKY
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Corporation plc is subject to asbestos claims from historic
products which may have contained asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Insurance may cover some of the costs
associated with these claims and proceedings. Although it is not
possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these
matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3vUF1Tw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Has $89MM Estimated Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, recorded
estimated liabilities of approximately $89 million and $83 million,
respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of December 31, 2020, approximately $25
million of this amount related to 261 open claims presented to
Generation, while the remaining $64 million is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary.
"It is reasonably possible that additional exposure to estimated
future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the
amount accrued could have a material, unfavorable impact on
Exelon's and Generation's financial statements. However, management
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss beyond the amounts
recorded."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3fidK7o
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Faces Multiple PI Claims at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by our heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.
"The Company incurred expenses of approximately $15.5 million,
$21.8 million and $24.8 million during the periods ending December
31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively, to defend, resolve or
otherwise dispose of outstanding claims, including legal and other
related expenses. These expenses are included within SG&A in the
Consolidated Statements of Income.
"The Company had cash (inflows)/outflows (net of insurance and/or
indemnity) to defend, resolve or otherwise dispose of outstanding
claims, including legal and other related expenses of approximately
$(5.5) million, $12.2 million and $12.6 million during the periods
ending December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.
Historically, a high percentage of resolved claims have been
covered by applicable insurance or indemnities from other
companies, and we believe that a substantial majority of existing
claims should continue to be covered by insurance or indemnities,
in whole or in part.
"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims and the receivable
for recoveries from insurance carriers that we have recorded for
these claims reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these
amounts. Our estimate of our ultimate exposure for asbestos claims,
however, is subject to significant uncertainties, including the
timing and number and types of new claims, unfavorable court
rulings, judgments or settlement terms and ultimate costs to
settle. Additionally, including the continued viability of
carriers, may also impact the amount of probable insurance
recoveries. We believe that these uncertainties could have a
material adverse impact on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows, though we currently believe
the likelihood is remote.
"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if in future periods are resolved more favorably than
reflected in the recorded receivables, would result in discrete
gains in the applicable year."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3txfihP
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $39.8MM Net A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., has $39.8 million of net
asbestos and environmental reserves, comprised of $8.3 million of
direct reserves and $31.5 million of assumed reinsurance pool
reserves as of December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "This compares to net reserves of $37.9 million
and $38.9 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively.
Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by our
property and casualty companies related to asbestos and
environmental damage liability were $8.3 million, $8.4 million and
$8.9 million, net of reinsurance of $17.9 million, $17.6 million
and $18.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and
2018, respectively. Activity for our direct asbestos and
environmental reserves was not significant to our 2020, 2019 or
2018 financial results. As a result of our historical direct
underwriting mix of Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and
middle market risks, past asbestos and environmental damage
liability loss experience has remained minimal in relation to our
total loss and LAE incurred experience. Although we attempt to
limit our exposures to asbestos and environmental damage liability
through specific policy exclusions, we have been and may continue
to be subject to claims related to these exposures.
"In addition to reserves we carry to cover exposure in our direct
business, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and
environmental damage liability of $31.5 million, $29.5 million and
$30.0 million at December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively.
These reserves relate to pools in which we have terminated our
participation; however, we continue to be subject to claims related
to years in which we were a participant. Results of operations from
these pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part
of our pool reserves relates to our participation in the ECRA
voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved
and since that time, the business has been in run-off. Our
percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from 1% to 6%
during these years. Our participation in this pool has resulted in
average paid losses of approximately $2 million annually over the
past ten years. In the first quarter of 2020, we received an
updated third-party actuarial study for the ECRA voluntary pool
which resulted in the aforementioned modest increase in our
asbestos and environmental reserves.
"We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and
toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct
business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon
currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are
not known, current law and methodologies currently available.
Although these outstanding claims are not believed to be
significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are
discussed because of the possibility that they may become
significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of case
law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims,
recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate.
Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability
reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations for a
particular quarterly or annual period or on our financial
position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3rrxPLj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Faces A&E Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive
A&E claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily
injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or
products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily
to pollution and related clean-up costs.
"The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In
addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and
environmental exposures under general liability policies and
pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported
in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.
"Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of
insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company
wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an
insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and
umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses
that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company
acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by
other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance
coverages.
"Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly
asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve
estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for
other more traditional exposures."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/30PZ5Z1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp. Has $13.5MM Exposure Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various
other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "At December 31, 2020 and 2019, our
consolidated balance sheets included liabilities for these other
legal actions of $13.5 million and $12.4 million, respectively.
These liabilities do not include costs associated with legal
representation. Based on our analysis, and considering the
inherent uncertainties associated with litigation, we do not
believe that it is reasonably possible that these other legal
actions will materially adversely affect our financial position,
cash flows or results of operations.
"Frequently, the proceedings alleging injurious exposure involve
claims made by numerous plaintiffs against many defendants. Defense
of these claims can be costly and time-consuming even if ultimately
successful. Because of the inherent uncertainties of legal
proceedings, we are unable to predict their outcome and therefore
cannot determine whether the financial impact, if any, will be
material to our financial position, cash flows or results of
operations.
"During the ordinary course of our business, contingencies arise
resulting from an existing condition, situation or set of
circumstances involving an uncertainty as to the realization of a
possible gain contingency. In certain instances such as
environmental projects, we are responsible for managing the
clean-up and remediation of an environmental site. There exists the
possibility of recovering a portion of these costs from other
parties. We account for gain contingencies in accordance with the
provisions of ASC 450 "Contingencies" and therefore do not record
gain contingencies and recognize income until it is earned and
realizable."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/30PfzAq
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Still Defends PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Parsons Corporation has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos
products at various project sites, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We believe that any significant costs relating
to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable insurance and do
not expect any of these claims to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition or results of operations. We record a
liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss has
been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.
Management judgment is required to determine the outcome and the
estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. Management
believes that there are no claims or assessments outstanding which
would materially affect our consolidated results of operations or
our financial position."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3f7nr8V
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ProSight Has $7.9MM A&E Liabilities at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ProSight Global, Inc., has gross liability related to asbestos and
environmental reserves was $7.9 million and $8.4 million as of
December 31, 2020 and 2019 respectively, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The Company believes that the uncertainty
surrounding asbestos and environmental exposures, including issues
as to insureds’ liabilities, ascertainment of loss date,
definitions of occurrence, scope of coverage, policy limits and
application and interpretation of policy terms, including
exclusions, all affect the estimation of ultimate losses. Under
such circumstances, it is difficult to determine the ultimate loss
for asbestos and environmental-related claims. Given the
uncertainty in this area, losses from asbestos and
environmental-related claims may develop adversely and accordingly,
management is unable to estimate the range of possible loss that
could arise from asbestos and environmental-related claims.
However, the Company's net unpaid reserves for loss and loss
adjustment expenses, in the aggregate, as of December 31, 2020,
represent management's best estimate."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3cIPLeL
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Technologies Faces Claims at Dec. 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roper Technologies, Inc., or its subsidiaries have been named
defendants along with numerous industrial companies in
asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by
Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid
defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them
vigorously. Given the state of these claims, it is not possible to
determine the potential liability, if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/2NqYn14
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Has $60.7MM Accrued Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Motor Products, Inc., has accrued asbestos liability of
$60.7 million as of December 31, 2020, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Standard Motor states, "The Company's asbestos liability represents
the low end of the actuarially determined range of the undiscounted
liability for settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related
damages, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from
insurance carriers.
"In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold
in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued
operation in the accompanying statement of operations. When we
originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future
liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business.
In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to
assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after
September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number
of claims filed against us on or after September 2001, and the
amounts paid for settlements, awards of asbestos-related damages,
and defense of such claims. At December 31, 2020, approximately
1,560 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for
any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through
December 31, 2020, the amounts paid for settled claims and awards
of asbestos-related damages, including interest, were approximately
$48.3 million. We do not have insurance coverage for the indemnity
and defense costs associated with the claims we face.
"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we use an
actuarial study that is prepared by a leading actuarial firm with
expertise in assessing asbestos-related liabilities. We evaluate
the estimate of the range of undiscounted liability to determine
which amount to accrue. Based on the information contained in the
actuarial study and all other available information considered by
us, we have concluded that no amount within the range was more
likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos
liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded
liability to determine if an adjustment is required. Legal costs
are expensed as incurred.
"In accordance with our policy to perform an annual actuarial
evaluation in the third quarter of each year, and whenever events
or changes in circumstances indicate that additional provisions may
be necessary, an actuarial study was performed as of August 31,
2020. The results of the August 31, 2020 study included an
estimate of our undiscounted liability for settlement payments and
awards of asbestos-related damages, excluding legal costs and any
potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from $58.1
million to $99.3 million for the period through 2065. Based upon
the results of the August 31, 2020 actuarial study, in September
2020 we increased our asbestos liability to $58.1 million, the low
end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of
$8.7 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations.
"As related to our potential asbestos-related liability as of
August 31, 2020, we were found liable for $7.6 million in
compensatory damages as a defendant in a 2018 asbestos liability
case in California. We actively pursued our right of appeal, and
during the fourth quarter of 2020, received notice that we lost the
appeal. The judgment against us was for the $7.6 million in
compensatory damages plus interest at a rate of ten percent (10%)
per annum. During the fourth quarter of 2020, we paid the
compensatory damages and accrued interest. Based upon the
reduction to our asbestos-related liability resulting from the
payment made in the California asbestos case and fourth quarter
2020 cash settlements, in December 2020 our actuarial firm
performed an updated actuarial study. The results of the updated
study included an estimate of our undiscounted liability for
settlement payments and awards of asbestos-related damages,
excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance
carriers, ranging from $63 million to $99.1 million for the period
through 2065. Based upon the results of the updated actuarial
study and in accordance with our practice, we increased our
asbestos liability as of November 2020 to $63 million, the low end
of the range, and recorded an additional incremental pre-tax
provision of $17 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued
operations. Future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and
reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the
accompanying statement of operations, are estimated, according to
the updated study, to range from $48.7 million to $95.4 million for
the period through 2065. Total operating cash outflows related to
discontinued operations, which include settlements, awards of
asbestos-related damages and legal costs, net of taxes, were $16.4
million, $7.6 million and $5.1 million for the years ended December
31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, respectively."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/39tqkxh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has 550 Pending Cases in U.S. and Europe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Inc.'s current docket of active and inactive cases is less
than 500 cases in the U.S. and less than 50 in Europe, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue to be
subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems
as a result of exposure to asbestos.
"With respect to the claims filed in the U.S., the substantial
majority of the claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos
in our line of Walker(R) exhaust automotive products although a
significant number of those claims appear also to involve
occupational exposures sustained in industries other than
automotive. A small number of claims have been asserted against one
of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to
asbestos products in railroad cars. We believe, based on scientific
and other evidence, it is unlikely that U.S. claimants were exposed
to asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they
would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on
their work with these products. Further, many of these cases
involve numerous defendants. Additionally, in many cases the
plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional
minimum, dollar amount for damages.
"With respect to the claims filed in Europe, the substantial
majority relate to occupational exposure claims brought by current
and former employees of Federal-Mogul facilities in France and
amounts paid out were not material. A small number of occupational
exposure claims have also been asserted against Federal-Mogul
entities in Italy and Spain.
"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of
business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased
number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against
these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. In future
periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings
if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date,
with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the
judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions.
Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related
claims will not have a material adverse effect on our annual
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/39sOIz5
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ViacomCBS Has 30,710 Pending Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
ViacomCBS Inc. had approximately 30,710 pending asbestos claims as
of December 31, 2020, as compared with approximately 30,950 as of
December 31, 2019 and 31,570 as of December 31, 2018, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We are a defendant in lawsuits claiming
various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials,
which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various
products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally
prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a
manufacturer of asbestos. We are typically named as one of a large
number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the
majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified
which of our products is the basis of a claim. Claims against us in
which a product has been identified most commonly relate to
allegations of exposure to asbestos-containing insulating material
used in conjunction with turbines and electrical equipment.
"Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may
make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of
pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to
period. We do not report as pending those claims on inactive,
stayed, deferred or similar dockets that some jurisdictions have
established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment.
During 2020, we received approximately 2,910 new claims and closed
or moved to an inactive docket approximately 3,150 claims. We
report claims as closed when we become aware that a dismissal order
has been entered by a court or when we have reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement
costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis
of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and
other factors. Our total costs for the years 2020 and 2019 for
settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance
recoveries and net of tax were approximately $35 million and $58
million, respectively. Our costs for settlement and defense of
asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are
not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of
the expenses.
"Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly
increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may
be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be
asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are
substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of
individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease. The predominant number of pending claims
against us are non-cancer claims. It is difficult to predict future
asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may impact the
estimate of our asbestos liabilities, including, among others, the
number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims.
We record an accrual for a loss contingency when it is both
probable that a liability has been incurred and when the amount of
the loss can be reasonably estimated. We believe that our accrual
and insurance are sufficient to cover our asbestos liabilities. Our
liability estimate is based upon many factors, including the number
of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the
breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs
per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims, as well as
consultation with a third party firm on trends that may impact our
future asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3tP9gcD
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.R. Berkley Has $19MM Net Reserves at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Berkley Corporation has $19 million net reserves for losses
and loss expenses relating to environmental and asbestos claims on
policies written before adoption of the absolute exclusion at
December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The estimation of these liabilities is subject
to significantly greater than normal variation and uncertainty
because it is difficult to make an actuarial estimate of these
liabilities due to the absence of a generally accepted actuarial
methodology for these exposures and the potential effect of
significant unresolved legal matters, including coverage issues, as
well as the cost of litigating the legal issues.
"Additionally, the determination of ultimate damages and the final
allocation of such damages to financially responsible parties are
highly uncertain."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3bTbIIS
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.W. Grainger, Inc., has also been named, along with numerous other
nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various
states involving asbestos and/or silica, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits typically assert claims of
personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or
silica as a consequence of products manufactured by third parties
purportedly distributed by the Company. While several lawsuits have
been dismissed in the past based on the lack of product
identification, if a specific product distributed by the Company is
identified in any pending or future lawsuits, the Company will seek
to exercise indemnification remedies against the product
manufacturer to the extent available. In addition, the Company
believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by
insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major
insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and the costs of
defense, of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. The
Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and
intends to continue defending itself vigorously in these lawsuits.
While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
proceedings, it believes that the ultimate resolution will not
have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3d0Iwzb
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Faces 400 PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., is defending approximately 400
lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name a
large number of defendants and do not identify any of our
particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date,
discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to
any of our products and no judgments have been entered against
us."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3c0ykaJ
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces PI Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation has claims filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates in various
jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Most of these claims have been made against
our wholly owned subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation
("RFPC"), and the vast majority of the claims, including all of the
RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and
indemnity, or to non-affiliated companies that retain the
liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We
cannot, however, assure that all of these claims will be fully
covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors or insurers will
remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial
liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other
pending litigation, cannot be estimated. A limited number of claims
are not covered by insurance, nor are they subject to indemnity
from non-affiliated parties. Wabtec has incurred defense,
administrative and indemnity costs in connection with these
actions, but these costs have not been material, and the Company
has no information that would suggest these costs would become
material in the foreseeable future. Based on the Company's history
in resolving all asbestos claims over the last twenty years,
Management believes that the costs of the Company's
asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's
overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/30SLK20
*********
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 ***