/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210429.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 80
Headlines
ADT: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Privacy Violations
AEGION CORPORATION: Assad Balks at Omitted New Mountain Merger Info
ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Cates Suit Alleges
ALLY FINANCIAL: D'Agostino Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation
AMDOCS LIMITED: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling Apps
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
ARS ACCOUNT: Klayton Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
ATHENEX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
BBBB BONDING: Can't Collect Debts From Bail Co-Signors
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Mirvis Files Suit Over Data Breach
BLUE SPARK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOOKING.COM: German Hotel Association Supports Class Action Lawsuit
BUMBLE BEE: 9th Circuit Decertifies Tuna Price-Fixing Classes
C-CON SERVICES: Carroll FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
CALIFORNIA: Charter Schools File Class Action Over State Defunding
CANAAN INC: Faces Denny Suit Over 30% Drop in Share Price
CANOO INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CASTILLO BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Fuentes Suit Says
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Lawsuit Mulled Over Crawford Coal Plant Implosion
COLORADO: Class Action Mulled Over ID.me Identity Verification
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuit
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: DeForest Sues Over Confusing Debt Letters
CONTAINER STORE: Worth Avenue Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Debt Letter "Deceptive," Cowan Suit Says
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kirksey Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramirez Files Suit in California Superior Ct.
CREDIT SUISSE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit
CYTODYN INC: Scott+Scott Announces Securities Class Action
DEARBORN BISTRO: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Johnson Suit Claims
DEYOUNG PORK: Faces Suit Over Worker's Unpaid Wages, Sexual Assault
EBANG INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
EBIX INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Class Claims
ELANCO ANIMAL: McDermotts Sue Over Unsafe Flea & Tick Collars
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Grogan Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
EPIC GAMES: Parent Challenges Motion to Dismiss Class Action
EREDI PISANO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says
ETHICON INC: Shine Lawyers Files Second Mesh Implant Class Action
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Frederick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FELDMAN LAW: Intervention in Sullivan Arbitration Proceedings Nixed
FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Approves Emissions Class Action Settlement
FIBROGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims
FIRST EAGLE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRANCIS FINANCIAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FRED ALGER: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GAP INC: Liberto Suit Removed to Middle District of Florida
GC SERVICES: Anderson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
GENUINE DATA: Faces Jackson Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
GONZO MARKETING: Faces Johnson Suit Over CSRs' Unpaid Overtime
HEALTH NET: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Confidential Data
HERRON RESIDENCE: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $5.5 Million
HIGHMARK INC: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Tenants Win Suit Over Utility Surcharges
I LOVE THIS BAR: Class in Young FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
INTERTEK USA: Faces Kirksey Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
JAMES FRANCO: Faces New Claims Amid Sexual Assault Class Action
JDD INVESTMENT: Avila Sues Over Discrimination & Unpaid Overtime
JELD-WEN INC: 5th Circuit Allows Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
JUUL LABS: Faces Jenkins Suit Over E-Cigarette Products' Marketing
KADMON HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KADMON HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KADMON HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KCI USA: Case Progression Deadlines in Palmer Suit Reinstated
KRAFT HEINZ: Huber Sues Over Pizza Bagels' Deceptive Front Labels
LA CARRETA: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Norovirus Outbreak
LASIK MD: Quebec Court Tosses Class Action Lawsuit
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LENOVO US: Loses Bid to Split Class, Merits Discovery in Singh Suit
LIMANI 51: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gjorevski Suit Alleges
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of May 17 Deadline
MARY SCHIMDT CAMPBELL: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
MATADOR PRODUCTION: Bragg Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
MDL 2670: EPPs Can't File Overlength Brief in Antitrust Suit
MDL 30051: Belviq-Related Suit Moved to US Judicial Panel
MELTON TRUCK: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. Oklahoma
MERCEDES-BENZ: Hagens Berman Files Defeat Device Class Action
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bagby Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
MIDLAND CREDIT: White Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
MLC NOMINEES: NAB MySuper Class Action Moved to Federal Court
MULTIPLAN CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
NAVISTAR INC: King & Spalding Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling
NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK, NY: Open Streets Opponents Mull Class Action Lawsuit
NEW YORK, NY: Taxi Drivers File Class Suit Over Medallion Prices
NOKIA CORP: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit
NYU HOSPITALS: Appeals Denial of Summary Judgment Bid
ONTRAK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
OUTBACK CARE: Faces Wrenn Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in M.D. Ga.
OZARK MOUNTAIN: Fails to Properly Pay Poultry Workers, Johnson Says
PHILIP MORRIS: Craig Sues Over Harmful Effects of Cigarettes
PLUG POWER: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Silberman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PRAIRIE FARMS: Wach Sues Over Ice Cream's Deceptive Labels
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Court Weighs Secondary Market Liability Claim
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Drips' Bid to Quash Moved to D. Massachusetts
R&D TECHNICAL: Galvan Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
ROGERS WIRELESS: Customers to Get Early Termination Fee Refunds
ROOT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Jane Doe Sues Over Breach of Patient Data
RUSHMORE LOAN: Faces Pueschel FCPA Suit in Massachusetts State Ct.
SCHOLAR ROCK: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
SIMPLY WHOLESOME: Lyons Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
SIX CONTINENTS: Harris Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
SLOAN VALVE: Popplewell's FLSA Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
SOS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SOS LIMITED: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
STAFFMARK GROUP: Misclassifies Recruiters, Ruiz Suit Alleges
STAR MULTI: Sirmons et al. Seek Homecare Providers' Unpaid Overtime
STATER BROS: Ross Suit Removed to C.D. California
SUFFOLK, NY: Judge Certifies Racial Discrimination Class Action
SUTTER HEALTH: California AG Seeks Slice of Antitrust Settlement
SYMMETRY ENERGY: Face Certified Roses Suit Over Unfair Gas Charges
TATA CONSULTANCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Alcala Claims
TCM HEALTH: Yuan et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
TEXAS: Order on Hegar's Plea to Jurisdiction in Best Buy Affirmed
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Bradley Sues Over Mislabeled Flushable Wipes
TRAVELERS HOME: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Manatt Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action
UNITED STATES: Colorado Woman Joins Title IX Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Eastern University Students Join Class Action Suit
UNITED STATES: Immigration Detainees' Class Action v. ICE Settled
VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over FLSA Violations
VALVE CORP: CD Projekt RED Removed From Steam Antitrust Lawsuit
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Benjamin Sues Over 90.5% Drop of Stock Price
VMK INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
VROOM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Judge Dismisses Nuisance Class Action
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Upholds Attorneys' Fees in Shareholder Suit
WELLS FARGO: Stoff Suit Removed to S.D. California
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Files Suit in California Superior Ct.
WESTROCK SERVICES: Savino Sues Over Unpaid OT, BIPA Non-Compliance
WORKHORSE GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: NRO RICO Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
ZOETIS INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discuses Class Action Ruling
[*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Actions Continue to Rise
[*] Bailey's Travel Urges Agents to Join Insurance Class Action
[*] Employers Can't Stop Workers to Join Class Suit Under PRO Act
*********
ADT: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Privacy Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Karantzoulidis, writing for CEPro, reports that ADT has been
hit with a class action lawsuit over a former employee that was
caught accessing the video feeds of hundreds of customers.
In April 2020, Telesforo Aviles was fired after ADT learned that he
added his personal email address to customers' accounts during
service visits, which gave him varying levels of access to their
systems through the company's mobile app, including the video
streams of security cameras. He pleaded guilty last month.
Randy Doty is filing a lawsuit against the home security company,
"based on its intentional and negligent tortious acts in providing
security services to its customers with remote-viewing
capabilities" and Aviles, for "using those services to spy on
Plaintiff and others who resided in homes with ADT security
systems."
The lawsuit targets ADT's Pulse platform, stating, "ADT failed to
provide the security services its customers paid for by leaving
large vulnerabilities in the ADT Pulse application and, as a
result, compromised the safety and security of its customers' homes
and family members."
It also brings up the home security company's marketing messages,
saying "ADT bragged that it was leading the industry in
establishing ‘best practices' for the protection of consumer
privacy, one of which was strict standards for access to data."
The lawsuit says ADT is responsible for seven causes of action,
including negligence; intrusion upon seclusion; negligent hiring,
supervision and retention; intentional infliction of emotional
distress; and privacy monitoring.
The plaintiff seeks class and sub-class certification and for the
plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class and sub-class;
declaratory and injunctive relief; an award for damages, costs, and
fees; pre and post judgment interest; and other relief. [GN]
AEGION CORPORATION: Assad Balks at Omitted New Mountain Merger Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE ASSAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AEGION CORPORATION, STEPHEN P. CORTINOVIS,
STEPHANIE A. CUSKLEY, WALTER J. GALVIN, RHONDA GERMANY BALLINTYN,
CHARLES R. GORDON, M. RICHARD SMITH, and PHILLIP D. WRIGHT,
Defendants, Case No. 2021-0349 (Del. Ch., April 23, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary
duties.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially
misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed acquisition of Aegion by
New Mountain Capital, LLC. Specifically, the proxy statement failed
to disclose material information: (1) concerning the don't ask,
don't waive (DADW) standstill restrictions in the confidentiality
agreements entered into with potential bidders during a
confidential auction process conducted by Aegion's board of
directors in September 2019, and (2) concerning the potential
conflicts of interest faced by Aegion's insiders. This omitted
information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix
of information available to Aegion stockholders and directly inform
their decision to vote in favor of or against the transaction with
New Mountain, says the suit.
Aegion Corporation is an engineering services company,
headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
1204 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 803-4600
- and –
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Cates Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
RICKEY CATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, ALLIANCE RESOURCE
PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCE OPERATING PARTNERS, L.P.,
ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC, HAMILTON COUNTY COAL, LLC,
and WHITE COUNTY COAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00377
(S.D. Ill., April 9, 2021) is a collective and class action
complaint brought against the Defendants seeking all available
remedies for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a coal miner from
approximately 2010 until February 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated coal
miners routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However,
the Defendants did not compensate them for all of the time that
they spent performing work, including work performed both before
and after their regularly scheduled shifts which is an integral and
indispensable part of their principal work activities. In addition,
the Defendants failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses in
their coal miners' regular rate for purposes of calculating
overtime compensation under the FLSA. As a result, the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated coal miners were not paid proper
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, the Plaintiff asserts.
Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate
records of the actual hours that the Plaintiff and Coal Miners
worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek.
The Plaintiff seeks back pay damages, including unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid spread of hours payments and unpaid wages, as
well as liquidated damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants operate seven underground mining complexes
in West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Maryland. Each of
the Defendants are joint employers of the Coal Miners, and their
operations are interrelated and share common management. The Parent
Defendants ARLP, AROP, and Alliance jointly controlled and directed
the employment policies and practices, including the illegal pay
practices of their subsidiaries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH
111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
- and –
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
Tel: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com
- and –
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4620
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
- and –
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
Krysten L. Connon, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Tel: (617) 994-5800
Fax: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
kconnon@llrlaw.com
- and –
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Liberato Verderame, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Tel: (215) 867-2399
Fax: (267) 685-0676
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
- and –
John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R.
KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC
P.O. Box 1746
Lexington, KY 40588
Tel: (859) 866-3097
E-mail: john@employmentlawky.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: D'Agostino Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN D'AGOSTINO; and JANELLE BURCH, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC.,
ALPACA SECURITIES LLC, CASH APP INVESTING LLC, SQUARE INC., DOUGH
LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, ETRADE SECURITIES LLC, ETRADE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ETRADE 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., 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 1:21-cv-21458-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2021)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that evidence of the
Defendants' collusion began after the stock market closed on
January 27, 2021, when after-hours trading revealed suspicious,
coordinated trading by the Defendants on the Relevant Securities.
Allegedly, the Defendants' short trading in the Relevant Securities
before the market opened on January 28, 2021 was counterintuitive.
Absent an agreement to drive down prices for the Relevant
Securities, it would not have been in the Defendants' economic best
interest to continue or expand short selling the Relevant
Securities, yet, prior to market open on January 28, institutional
investors took more short positions, seemingly anticipating an end
to the short squeeze. While it is likely that the Fund Defendants
engaged in the after-hours short selling in an effort to recoup
their losses from the short squeeze, there was nothing that would
have supported this action. In fact, discussions by retail
investors on online forums indicated that the short squeeze was not
coming to an end as retail investors spoke of expanding their
positions in the Relevant Securities. Popularity in the short
squeeze also brought new retail investors who were interested in
purchasing the Relevant Securities, the suit says.
Allegedly, the Defendants knowingly entered into an illegal
conspiracy to affect the market prices of the Relevant Securities.
The Clearinghouse and Fund Defendants pressured the Brokerage
Defendants to restrict trading of the Relevant Securities by retail
investors. The conspiracy prevented retail investors from fairly
participating in the stock market with respect to the Relevant
Securities while Defendant were able to exert control and drive the
prices of the Relevant Securities down. The conspiracy deceived
retail investors into believing that they could fairly trade the
Relevant Securities through the Brokerage Defendants until the
Defendants restricted trading by retail investors for their own
gain, added the suit.
Throughout the conspiracy, the Defendants made misstatements about
their involvement in the conspiracy, including how and why trading
restrictions were being implemented, in order to deceive retail
investors and profit to the detriment of retail investors.
Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The
Company offers automotive financial services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick S. Montoya, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, PH
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
E-mail: patrick@colson.com
eservice@colson.com
-and-
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
Keith J. Verrier, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com
acohen@lfsblaw.com
kverrier@lfsblaw.com
nelia@lfsblaw.com
-and-
Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
AMDOCS LIMITED: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until June 8, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in
a securities class action lawsuit against Amdocs Limited (NasdaqGS:
DOX), if they purchased the Company's shares between December 13,
2016 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
What You May Do
If you purchased shares of Amdocs and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-dox/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by June 8, 2021.
About the Lawsuit
Amdocs and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On March 31, 2021, pre-market, Jehoshaphat Research reported a
series of allegations against the Company including that it
overstated its profits based on steady parent profits despite
declining subsidiary profits; a pattern of resignations by
reputable auditors replaced by "scandal-plagued or tiny shops";
that the Company "window-dressed" its balance sheets to keep its
large borrowing a secret, specifically by timing its debt payment
and reborrowing to appear debt-free; that the Company was losing
AT&T as a customer, and other assertions.
On this news, shares of Amdocs plummeted $9.19 per share, or
11.58%, to close at $70.15 per share on March 31, 2021.
The case is Marn v. Amdocs Limited, et al., No. 21-cv-03078.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
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.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contacts:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling Apps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madhukumar Warrier, writing for Benzinga, reports that Apple Inc.
has been hit with a class-action lawsuit that accuses the tech
giant of profiting from illegal gambling apps on the App Store,
AppleInsider reported on April 6.
What Happened: The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Joshua
McDonald and Michael Helsel, states that Apple has profited from
illegal gambling games developed by DoubleU Games Co. It alleges
that the apps constitute illegal gambling pursuant to various state
laws.
Apple is reportedly accused of operating as an "unlicensed casino"
by selling and distributing several free-to-play casino games,
which use in-game currency like "coins" or "chips" in lieu of
actual money. The lawsuit notes that users will be prompted to use
the actual currency to play the game when they ultimately run out
of coins or chips.
According to the complaint, paying money in a game for a chance to
win more playing time violates the anti-gambling laws of 25 states.
The lawsuit is seeking class-action status in all those states, as
per the report.
The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial and asking for an injunction
prohibiting Apple from taking part in the allegedly illegal action.
It also seeks statutory damages and other costs.
See Also: Tim Cook Says He Has 'Great Admiration And Respect' For
Tesla As He Drops Hints On Apple Car
Why It Matters: This is not the first time that Apple has been hit
with a lawsuit alleging it benefits from illegal gambling apps. In
October 2020, a woman sued Apple alleging that dree-to-play with
in-game currency games on the App Store constitute illegal
gambling, according to another report by AppleInsider.
Bloomberg reported in August 2018 that Apple removed thousands of
gambling apps from its Chinese store after the state-run China
Central Television accused the company of being slow to clean up
illegal content.
It was reported in July last year that Apple saw more than 2,500
games removed from the App Store in China in the first week of
July. [GN]
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: AQST) between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 30, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Aquestive 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 Aquestive class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 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) data included in the Libervant
Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters ("Libervant")
New Drug Application ("NDA") submission showed a lower drug
exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; (2) the
foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval
prospects; (3) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration would not approve the Libervant NDA in its
current form; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Aquestive class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ARS ACCOUNT: Klayton Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS Account
Resolution, et al. The case is styled as Joan Klayton, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. ARS Account
Resolution, Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-10053-MAS-ZNQ (D.N.J., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
ARS Account Resolution -- https://www.arspayment.com/ -- is a debt
collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
ATHENEX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Athenex, Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-00413, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquire Athenex common stock
between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Athenex securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Athenex is a "global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of
cancer." Athenex is "organized around three platforms, including an
Oncology Innovation Platform, a Commercial Platform, and a Global
Supply Chain Platform." One of the Company's main drug candidates
is an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of
metastatic breast cancer.
On August 7, 2019, Athenex announced topline data showing that oral
paclitaxel and encequidar met the primary efficacy endpoint with
statistically significant improvement over IV paclitaxel in a Phase
3 pivotal study in metastatic breast cancer. In this release, the
Company stated that it intended to seek a pre-New Drug Application
("NDA") meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
and would "be preparing our NDA submission as soon as possible."
Over the next several months, Defendants continued to laud their
Phase 3 study of oral paclitaxel plus encequidar.
On September 1, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA had
accepted for filing Athenex's NDA for Oral Paclitaxel and
Encequidar in metastatic breast cancer with priority review. In
this release, Athenex announced that the FDA had set a target
action date of February 28, 2021 for the Company's NDA, and that
"the FDA has communicated that it is not currently planning to hold
an advisory committee meeting to discuss the application."
Then, on December 9, 2020, Athenex announced that it had presented
updated Phase 3 data on survival and tolerability associated with
Oral Paclitaxel and Encequidar in patients with metastatic breast
cancer. The Company announced that it had presented this Phase 3
data at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, and that the
data "demonstrat[ed] clinical benefits in efficacy and tolerability
of oral paclitaxel versus IVP in patents with metastatic breast
cancer . . . . The findings further support the superiority of
increased ORR [objective response rate] observed with oral
paclitaxel."
The complaint 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: (i) the data
included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a
safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in
neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results
of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19
conducted by BICR; (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read
process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the
BICR; (iv) that the Company's Phase 3 study that was used to file
the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient
population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S.
population, such that the FDA would recommend a new such clinical
trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Before the markets opened on March 1, 2021, Athenex issued a press
release entitled "Athenex Receives FDA Complete Response Letter for
Oral Paclitaxel Plus Encequidar for the Treatment of Metastatic
Breast Cancer." In this release, Athenex noted that the "FDA Issues
a CRL to indicate that the review cycle for an application is
complete and that the application is not ready for approval in its
present form." This release further provided that "[i]n the CRL,
the FDA indicated its concern of safety risk to patients in terms
of an increase in neutropenia-related sequalae on the Oral
Paclitaxel arm compared with the IV paclitaxel arm."
In this March 1, 2021 press release, Athenex further stated that
the "FDA also expressed concerns regarding the uncertainty over the
results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at
week 19 conducted by blinded independent centra review (BICR). The
[FDA] stated that the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may
have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR."
Last, in this release, Athenex wrote that the FDA "recommended that
Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial in
a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative
of the population of the U.S. The [FDA] determined that additional
risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity, which may involve
dose optimization and / or exclusion of patients deemed to be at a
higher risk of toxicity, are required to support potential approval
of the NDA."
On this news, the price of Athenex's shares plummeted from their
February 26, 2021 closing price of $12.10 per share to a March 1,
2021 close of just $5.46 each. This represents a one-day drop of
approximately 55%, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost market capitalization.
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
URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE,
INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION,
SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS,
INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS
INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC.,
and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00996 (D. Minn.,
April 15, 2021) is an action arising from an unlawful agreement
among the Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of
seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides,
and insecticides ("Crop Inputs") used by farmers.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs
prices inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of
their conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market
information, including transparent pricing terms that would allow
comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and
information about seed relabeling practices that would enable
farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or
identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a
higher price.
Beginning early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales platforms
launched and offered pricing comparison tools to allow farmers to
view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs,
increasing price transparency. These online sales platforms,
including Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became
successful with farmers.
Viewing this success, the Defendants allegedly conspired and
coordinated to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms
because of the threat they posed to the Defendants' market position
and price control. As a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants' have
maintained supracompetitive prices for Crop Inputs by denying
farmers access to accurate pricing information and have injured
farmers by forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that
drastically outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices,
added the suit.
Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The
Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides,
traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
aregan@hjlawfirm.com
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
-and-
Drew R. Ball, Esq.
BALL & McCANN, P.C.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (872) 205-6556
E-mail: Drew@BallMcCannLaw.com
Steve@BallMcCannLaw.com
BBBB BONDING: Can't Collect Debts From Bail Co-Signors
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Dworetzky, writing for PleasantonWeekly.com, reports that an
Alameda County Superior Court judge on April 8 barred BBBB Bonding
Company, doing business under the colorful name Bad Boys Bail
Bonds, from trying to collect debts from bail bond co-signors who
were not given proper notice under California's Unfair Competition
Law.
The preliminary injunction, entered in class-action litigation
brought in response to a routine collection action, prevents Bad
Boys' debt-collection efforts against co-signors in the class while
the litigation is pending.
The case arose from an incident in June of 2018 when Kiara
Caldwell, identified in court papers as a privately employed
security guard living in Sacramento, allegedly received a call from
a representative of Bad Boys who said that a friend of hers had
been arrested and "needed to be bailed out of jail."
Bad Boys, a bail bond company based in San Jose, also maintains an
office in Oakland, and Caldwell went there to see if she could
help. According to the complaint, she was told that her friend
could be released if Caldwell put up $500 and signed some
paperwork.
The meeting lasted only 15 minutes, and according to the complaint,
"much of that time consisted of Ms. Caldwell going to an ATM to
withdraw cash, as the Bad Boys representative refused to accept Ms.
Caldwell's $500 payment via debit card."
What's local journalism worth to you?
Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month.
Caldwell paid the $500 and signed several agreements.
One agreement was a premium finance agreement. The bail amount set
in the friend's case was $50,000. Bad Boys required 10% -- or
$5,000 -- of that amount in order to stand responsible for the full
bail amount. However, because Caldwell only provided $500 cash, Bad
Boys required an agreement for the payment of the remaining $4,500
over time.
The paperwork also included an "Indemnity Agreement" -- a personal
guarantee -- whereby Caldwell became liable for $4,500 as well as
the full amount of the bail -- $50,000 in this case -- if her
friend did not appear in court or pay herself.
According to the filing, "entire interaction with Bad Boys was
rushed and pressured. Ms. Caldwell was simply told where to sign or
initial, with the Bad Boys representative offering no explanation
of the particular terms of the agreements."
The complaint says that Bad Boys did not tell Caldwell that she
would be responsible for paying the $4,500 and that she would have
to start making monthly installment payments shortly. Bad Boys also
allegedly did not tell her that those amounts were non-refundable.
The California Unfair Competition Law includes a variety of
consumer protections. One of them requires that when a person
co-signs a consumer credit contract (and isn't receiving the money
or property being provided themselves), he or she is entitled to a
so-called "1799.91 notice."
The 1799.91 notice has to explicitly advise the co-signor, among
other things, that "You are being asked to guarantee this debt.
Think carefully before you do. If the borrower doesn't pay the
debt, you will have to. Be sure you can afford to pay if you have
to, and that you want to accept this responsibility."
The notice further must provide "The creditor can collect this debt
from you without first trying to collect from the borrower. The
creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can
be used against the borrower, such as suing you, garnishing your
wages, etc."
Bad Boys did not provide a 1799.91 notice to Caldwell.
The filing states "on information and belief" that Bad Boys has
never provided such notice to any co-signor in connection with its
bail bonds.
Most Viewed Stories
-- Proposed Niles Canyon Trail would link Sunol and Fremont
-- Pleasanton woman accused of charging up credit cards stolen
from older residents
-- Guest Opinion: Understanding the Tri-Valley's water supply
-- Livermore: Coroner IDs man killed in rollover down I-580
embankment
-- Police identify suspect, motive still unknown for
neighborhood gunfire
Information and belief is a legal phrase that indicates that while
the person does not have direct knowledge of the fact, he or she
believes it to be true based on all the information he or she has.
The 1799.91 notice seeks to prevent hasty or thoughtless
commitments made by a consumer on behalf of another person,
particularly a friend or family member.
While the statute provides a wide array of consumer contracts,
according to Caldwell's lawyers, "it's especially important in this
in this context because Bad Boys is dealing with people at one of
the worst moments of their lives. They're dealing with people . . .
who have a relative or a loved one who's in jail and they
desperately need to get this person out..."
Shortly after signing the papers, Caldwell was contacted by Bad
Boys and was told that she had to make monthly payments on the
$4,500 bail premium.
The complaint alleges that: "Bad Boys began harassing Ms. Caldwell
for installment payments. Bad Boys called Ms. Caldwell's personal
phone repeatedly . . . When Ms. Caldwell began declining Bad Boys'
calls, Bad Boys began calling from blocked phone numbers to
disguise the identity of the caller."
The collection efforts did not stop even when Caldwell changed her
phone number. Bad Boys allegedly called Caldwell's mother, and
finally, in October 2018, Bad Boys sued Caldwell.
Bad Boys routinely files collection actions against co-signors that
fail to pay, according to Caldwell's lawyers, and in most of those
cases Bad Boys get judgment by default.
In this case, Bad Boys got something very different.
Keker Van Nest and Peters is a well-known San Francisco commercial
litigation firm. Several of its lawyers, along with the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, entered
appearances in the case on behalf of Caldwell.
Saying that Bad Boys' acts and practices "are immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous, substantially injurious to California
consumers, and offend California public policy," they filed an
unusual class action "cross claim" against Bad Boys.
The filing asserted that the Bad Boys had failed to give co-signors
the 1799.91 notice and therefore was not entitled to collect, not
just against Caldwell, but against any member of the class who had
not been given the notice.
Jay Rapaport, one of the Keker lawyers involved with the case,
estimated that the class was likely more than a thousand people.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman, in an order
entered on April 8, determined that the statute was applicable to
bail bond agreements, that Caldwell should have been given a
1799.91 notice, and therefore Caldwell had shown a "substantial
likelihood of success on the merits" of her claim.
The judge also found that Caldwell and others in the class had been
"victimized" by not getting the notice.
The injunction prevents Bad Boys from filing suits or otherwise
trying to collect against co-signors on credit bail agreements if
they were not given the required notice.
The judge stayed his order for 15 days.
The court did not explain why it stayed its ruling, but Rapaport
said, "I would imagine that the court did so to give Bad Boys an
opportunity to appeal and to seek a stay from the court of
appeal."
Niall Roberts, another of the Keker lawyers on the case, said the
ruling "should be a wakeup call for the bail bond industry. The
bail bond industry has been operating like they're above the law
for decades now."
Even though California voters in 2020 rejected a Proposition to
eliminate cash bail throughout the state, Roberts said, "people are
finally waking up to the inequities of the cash bail system.
They're finally waking up to the inequitable ways that these bail
bond companies work and make money from low income people in
particular. And I think people are finally ready to fight back."
[GN]
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Mirvis Files Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER MIRVIS, BETTY BUTLER and LAINIE FROEHLICH, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY,
INC. and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (a/k/a GEICO), Case
No. 1:21-cv-02210-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021) arises from
Defendants' failure to safeguard the confidential information of
millions of current and former GEICO customers. The confidential
information stolen appears to be information contained on
plaintiffs' customers' driver's license numbers and others
similarly situated.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were policyholders of
insurance written by GEICO. In the course of purchasing insurance,
Plaintiffs were required to provide certain personal and financial
information to GEICO, including name, address, Social Security
number, vehicle information, and driver's license number.
On April 9, 2021, Defendant GEICO advised Plaintiffs by letter that
personal information illegally obtained from other sources had been
used to obtain unauthorized access to their driver's license
numbers through the online sales system on GEICO's website, and
that said information could be used to fraudulently apply for
unemployment benefits in such policyholders' names ("Data Breach").
The information accessed appears to have been the plaintiffs'
driver's licenses, drivers' license number, legal names, addresses,
etc.
GEICO has failed to maintain the confidentiality of Personal
Identifiable Information (PII), failed to prevent cybercriminals
from access and use of PII, failed to avoid accidental loss,
disclosure, or unauthorized access to PII, failed to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure of PII, and failed to provide security
measures consistent with industry standards for the protection of
PII, of its current and former policyholders, asserts the
complaint.
Plaintiff Alexander Mirvis is an individual GEICO policyholder
residing in the County of Kings, State of New York.
Plaintiff Betty Butler is an individual GEICO policyholder residing
in the County of Queens, State of New York.
Plaintiff Lainie Froehlich is an individual GEICO policyholder
residing in the County of Suffolk, State of New York.
GEICO is an insurance company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Defendant Berkshire, authorized to conduct business in the State of
New York, which conducts business within the State of New York and
within this District, with its headquarters located in Chevy Chase,
Maryland.
Berkshire is a domestic business corporation, organized and
existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, authorized
to conduct business in the State of New York, which conducts
business within the State of New York, headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip M. Heines, Esq.
HELD & HINES, L.L.P.
2004 Ralph Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 531-9700
E-mail: phines@heldhines.com
BLUE SPARK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Spark Capital
Advisors LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Blue Spark
Capital Advisors LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03605-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April
22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Blue Spark Capital Advisors -- https://www.bluesparkfinancial.com/
-- is a fee-only Registered Investment Advisory and financial
planning firm based in New York City and the Berkshires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
BOOKING.COM: German Hotel Association Supports Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hospitalitynet reports that The German Hotel Association (IHA)
supports a class-action lawsuit brought by around 2,000 hotels
against Booking.com at the Berlin Regional Court.
The association justifies its commitment to help hoteliers to their
rights in court. Since 2004 at the latest, the booking portal has
applied best-price clauses with which it prohibited affiliated
hotels from offering rooms at lower rates through any other
distribution channel. With these clauses, Booking.com shielded its
business model against any competition in violation of antitrust
law, which ultimately allowed the company to collect booking
commissions of up to 50% of the room rate from hoteliers.
Settlement Negotiations Failed
Hoteliers were overcharged and harmed by the best price clauses.
The German Hotel Association is now supporting around 2,000 hotels
that have joined its "daBeisein" initiative to enforce their claim
for compensation in court.
"After several months of settlement negotiations that were actually
constructive, Booking.com surprisingly left the negotiating table
at the end of October last year and arbitrarily sued 66 hotels
participating in the initiative in a Dutch court in Amsterdam for
'negative determination of its liability.' This left the remaining
2,000 hotels with no other option than to now file a class action
suit themselves with the Berlin Regional Court," Otto Lindner, as
IHA Chairman, explains the procedure.
In 2013, the Federal Cartel Office had initiated antitrust
proceedings against Booking.com following a complaint by the German
Hotel Association due to the use of best price clauses in violation
of antitrust law. After both the Federal Cartel Office and the
Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court left no doubt in the parallel
case of HRS that the best price clauses were incompatible with
German and European antitrust law, the booking portal ultimately
removed the best price clauses from its terms and conditions in
Germany in 2015. [GN]
BUMBLE BEE: 9th Circuit Decertifies Tuna Price-Fixing Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that antitrust class
action plaintiffs won a battle on April 6 when the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled in Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op Inc v.
Bumble Bee Foods LLC that three classes of packaged tuna fish
purchasers were entitled to rely on their statistical model to
establish that common issues predominated in their claims against
the tuna companies.
But plaintiffs lost the war.
The 9th Circuit panel -- Judges Andrew Kleinfeld, Andrew Hurwitz
and Patrick Bumatay -- decertified the three tuna purchaser classes
suing Bumble Bee, StarKist Co, Chicken of the Sea International and
other tuna packagers, concluding that U.S. District Judge Janis
Sammartino abused her discretion by failing to pick between the two
sides' different statistical models on classwide injury.
The two models offered wildly different hypotheses on the
percentage of class members who were affected by the alleged price
fixing: Plaintiffs contended that nearly 95% of tuna purchasers had
suffered an antitrust injury, but defendants said nearly 30% were
uninjured. The 9th Circuit held that Sammartino should not have
certified the class without resolving that discrepancy.
Even more significantly, the 9th Circuit staked out a clear
position on the vexatious issue of class certification and
uninjured class members. The appeals court explicitly held that
trial judges may not certify classes that contain more than a
minimal number of uninjured class members. The 9th Circuit cited
similar rulings from other federal circuits in antitrust class
actions, including the D.C. Circuit in 2019's In re Rail Freight
Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, which said the "outer limit"
is 5% to 6%. In the 1st Circuit's 2018 decision in In re Asacol,
the appeals court overturned certification of a class in which 10%
of class members were potentially uninjured.
The 9th Circuit's tuna ruling did not set a bright-line standard
for an acceptable percentage of uninjured class members, but I'm
sure the ruling will nevertheless empower class action defendants,
especially in antitrust cases that rely on statistical modeling to
show the impact of price fixing, to argue that purchasers can't be
certified as a class because not all of them were injured. (It's
probably not a coincidence that the 1st, 9th and D.C. Circuit
rulings on class certification and uninjured class members have all
occurred in antitrust cases, in which plaintiffs are specifically
required to prove antitrust injury in their pleadings.)
Bumatay, who wrote the opinion, said the threshold percentage "must
be de minimus." And if defendants are right that more than a
quarter of the purchasers in the class were not injured, the
opinion said, that's clearly more than a minimal number. "If 28% of
the class were uninjured," the 9th Circuit concluded, "common
questions of law or fact would not be shared by substantially all
the class members, nor would they prevail in strength or
pervasiveness over individual questions."
In a potentially ominous footnote for class action plaintiffs, the
9th Circuit added that the presence of uninjured plaintiffs in
certified classes "also raises serious standing implications under
Article III" of the Constitution. "We are skeptical," Bumatay
wrote, that Article III permits certification of a class that
includes "countless" unnamed class members who were not injured.
But the 9th Circuit said it did not have to reach questions about
constitutional standing because plaintiffs' could not satisfy the
class action rules.
Only Kleinfeld and Bumatay joined in the 9th Circuit's conclusion
that classes with more than a minimal percentage of uninjured class
members cannot be certified. In a dissent, Hurwitz said the
majority had effectively breached standard procedure to add a new
provision to Rule 23.
"We should not legislate from the appellate bench based on our
personal concerns with the class action device," Hurwitz wrote.
"Under the (class action) rule as currently written, we should
instead leave fact-based decisions on predominance and case
management to the sound discretion of the district courts."
I emailed queries on the significance of the decision to the three
plaintiffs lawyers who argued for tuna purchasers at the 9th
Circuit: Christopher Lebsock of Hausfeld; Jonathan Cuneo of Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca; and Thomas Burt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz. None of them got back to me.
Scott Nelson of Public Citizen, who filed an amicus brief in the
case, said by email that the majority's opinion is inconsistent
with both the text of Rule 23 and 9th Circuit precedent on whether
classes can be certified with more than a de minimus number of
uninjured class members.
"The possibility that a more than de minimus number of class
members may ultimately lose on the merits of their claims doesn't
mean that a class action is not the best and most efficient way of
resolving a case," Nelson said. "Even if it is possible that the
defendants may ultimately succeed in showing that 28% of the class
could not recover, a reasonable district court could still conclude
that this case would benefit from being litigated as a class action
because the common questions it undisputedly presents predominate
over questions that are not common."
It's worth noting, as the 9th Circuit did in its opinion, that the
major defendants have been targeted in a Justice Department
antitrust case and have admitted price fixing.
Gregory Garre of Latham & Watkins argued at the 9th Circuit for the
tuna defendants. A Latham spokeswoman said the firm would not
provide a statement on the decision. Allen & Overy and Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison also represent defendants in the case.
A spokesman for StarKist said the company was pleased with the
decision decertifying the purchaser classes. StarKist's statement
noted that senior managers were unaware of the anticompetitive
conduct of one employee several years ago but that in an acceptance
of responsibility has reached out-of-court settlements with more
than 75% of its direct purchasers.
"While we are pleased with this ruling and believe that the 9th
Circuit's decision will make it difficult for the class plaintiffs
to certify classes on remand, StarKist remains willing to work to
resolve these issues on a reasonable basis so as to avoid further
protracted litigation," the statement said.
The tuna cases will now return to Sammartino, the trial judge, to
decide whether plaintiffs' models show by a preponderance of the
evidence that the class contains only a minimal number of uninjured
class members. [GN]
C-CON SERVICES: Carroll FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BETTY DIANE CARROLL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. C-CON SERVICES, INC. and EARL B.
COTTON, Case No. 21-2054-431, was removed from the 431st Judicial
District Court in Denton County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas on April 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-00327 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime compensation and retaliation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
C-Con Services, Inc. is a company that provides underground utility
services, with its corporate headquarters located at 118 Hillside
Dr., Lewisville, Texas. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Darrell Smith, Esq.
Cynthia Karm, Esq.
CUTLER-SMITH, P.C.
Park Central 7
12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1450
Dallas, TX 75251
Telephone: (214) 219-0800
Facsimile: (214) 219-0854
E-mail: darrell@cutler-smith.com
ckarm@cutler-smith.com
CALIFORNIA: Charter Schools File Class Action Over State Defunding
------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Nelson, writing for The Coast News Group, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed by three local public charter schools
fighting state defunding has been certified to represent more than
300 public charter schools throughout the state.
Filed in September 2020 and led by The Classical Academies, River
and Empire Springs charter schools and The Learning Choice Academy,
the lawsuit Reyes v. State of California challenges the State of
California's decision to not fund newly enrolled students in
"non-classroom based" public charter schools that specialize in
providing at-home, remote or hybrid learning.
In California, a school is considered non-classroom based if more
than 20% of learning occurs off-campus. These types of schools
often serve students who are immune-compromised or hospitalized,
students who have been bullied at other schools, students who are
either academically behind or advanced, who are Olympic athletes,
actors, homeless or who move frequently due to their parents being
in the military.
Historically, California's education funding followed the student,
meaning that if a student leaves a public school for a public
charter school, the funding for that particular student would
follow them to the new school.
Last summer, the state decided to not fund new students at these
particular types of public charter schools during the 2020-2021
school year.
"For the very first time ever, state funding didn't follow the
student," said Cameron Curry, executive director at Classical
Academies.
By that point, Classical Academies and other similar public charter
schools had already enrolled students for that school year, meaning
they would have to provide for these new students without the state
funding they would have traditionally had.
The lawsuit asserts that 5-year-old Olena Reyes was waitlisted at
Classical Academies due to the defunding move, preventing her from
attending school with her older brother Santino and blocking access
to a potentially beneficial education program that will help the
young girl, who like her brother is on the autism spectrum.
Curry said the school, which has several campus locations
throughout Escondido and Oceanside, has had to dip into its
reserves to continue providing for the nearly 1,200 students it
already enrolled throughout the summer last year before the state
decided to defund non-classroom-based charter schools.
Regional charter schools saw an influx of students coming from
public schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, especially
in the beginning when some school districts were slow to respond.
Classical Academies on the other hand had pivoted quickly, Curry
said.
"Parents weren't getting anything from their local school
districts," he said. "When they heard Classical Academies' students
were meeting with teachers virtually, they thought, 'I want that
for my kid.'"
According to Classical Academies and its legal representatives, the
state breached its constitutional, statutory and contractual
obligations to fund each student's education at the public school
they choose.
Then last month, a state court ordered class certification of the
lawsuit, making it the first class-action lawsuit involving charter
schools in California.
The court's order granting class certification is significant
because a victory will apply to the state's 308 non-classroom-based
charter schools that serve nearly 200,000 students and ensure their
right to be funded.
"We now carry the weight of 308 schools, which represents 29% of
all charter public schools in the state with our litigation,"
stated Paul Minney, an attorney with Young, Minney & Corr, LLP, who
is representing the plaintiff schools. "This decision elevates
these schools and validates the needs they all have for access to
constitutionally guaranteed funding for students and their public
education."
Curry said he is looking forward to the lawsuit's day in court,
which is currently scheduled for July. Still, the fight may
continue sometime after that hearing.
"I anticipate that we will win the case and that the state will
appeal," Curry said. [GN]
CANAAN INC: Faces Denny Suit Over 30% Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------
JASON DENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CANAAN INC., NANGENG ZHANG, and TONG HE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03299 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021) is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of Canaan between February 10, 2021
and April 9, 2021 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act").
According to the complaint, on Monday, April 12, 2021, before the
opening of trading, Canaan issued a press release finally
disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20 financial results for the
period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year
decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter.
On this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs allegedly collapsed
from their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at
$13.14 per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly 30%, on
unusually high volume of approximately 60 million ADRs trading,
more than three times the average daily volume over the preceding
ten trading days.
Canaan Inc. provides semiconductor solutions. The Company produces
custom designed integrated circuit microprocessors for
supercomputing hardware. Canaan serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
-and-
Ralph M. Stone, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
1700 Broadway, 41st Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 292-5690
Facsimile: (212) 292-5680
E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com
CANOO INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV; NASDAQ:
GOEVW) in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Canoo between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canoo had decreased
its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a
subscription model; (ii) Canoo would deemphasize its engineering
services business; (iii) contrary to prior statements, Canoo did
not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers and no
longer engaged in the previously-announced partnership with
Hyundai; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. On March 29, 2021, Canoo revealed that Canoo would no longer
focus on its engineering services line, which had been touted in
the SPAC merger documents just three months earlier and formed the
basis of Canoo's growth story. On this news, Canoo's stock price
fell more than 21.19%, damaging investors.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Canoo
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June
1, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 6
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW) ("Canoo")
f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ: HCAC; HCACW;
HCACU) ("Hennessy Capital") on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Canoo securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 1,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/canoo-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Canoo
Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle
("EV") company that touted a "unique business model that defies
traditional ownership to put customers first." It announced a
delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to launch in
2023), and van, all of which are built on the same underlying
technological platform. Hennessy Capital was a special purpose
acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger,
capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization or similar business combination. On or about
December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger
with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named Canoo (the
"Merger").
The Class Period commences on August 18, 2020, when Hennessy
Capital and Canoo Holdings issued a joint press release announcing
the Merger. In its press release, Canoo Holdings touted its
engineering services line and the Hyundai partnership for the
co-development of a future EV platform.
On September 18, 2020, Canoo filed its Registration Statement on a
Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").
The Registration Statement was subsequently amended on October 23,
2020 and November 27, 2020. Canoo also filed its Prospectus on a
Form 424b3 with the SEC on December 4, 2020. On December 21, 2020,
stockholders voted at a special meeting to approve the Merger.
On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo held a conference
call in connection with its fourth quarter 2020 financial results
which were released the same day. During the call, defendant, Tony
Aquila, a director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger,
revealed that Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering
services line. The same day, Canoo also announced that Paul
Balciunas, who served as the Chief Financial Officer of Canoo
following the close of the Merger, had resigned, effective April 2,
2021. Following this news, Canoo's stock price fell $2.50, or
21.19%, to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had
decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers
through a subscription model; (2) Canoo would deemphasize its
engineering services business; (3) contrary to prior statements,
Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Canoo investors may, no later than June 1, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
CANOO INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California
on behalf of purchasers of Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ:GOEV; NASDAQ:GOEVW)
securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Blake v. Canoo Inc.,
No. 21-cv-02873, and is assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The
Canoo class action lawsuit charges Canoo and certain of its
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Canoo securities during the Class Period to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Canoo 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 Canoo class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Canoo class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Canoo class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Canoo
class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights
regarding the Canoo class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Canoo class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 1,
2021.
Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle
company that touted a "unique business model that defies
traditional ownership to put customers first." Canoo Holdings has
announced a delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to
launch in 2023), and van, all of which are built on the same
underlying technological platform. Hennessy Capital Acquisition
Corp. IV ("Hennessy Capital") was a blank check company, also known
as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business
combination. On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a
public entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving
entity named "Canoo."
The Canoo class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Canoo had decreased its focus on its
plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription model;
(ii) Canoo would deemphasize its engineering services business;
(iii) contrary to prior statements, Canoo did not have partnerships
with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the
previously-announced partnership with Hyundai; and (iv) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Canoo's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 29, 2021, Canoo revealed that Canoo would no longer focus
on its engineering services line, which had been touted in the SPAC
merger documents just three months earlier and formed the basis of
Canoo's growth story. On this news, Canoo's stock price fell more
than 21.19%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
eight consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CANOO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Canoo Inc.
("Canoo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) 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 August 18,
2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 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. Canoo shifted away from its previous
focus on selling vehicles using a subscription model. The Company's
engineering services would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021,
or reduce operational risk. As a result, the Company would shift
its focus away from the engineering services business as well. The
Company did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and was not engaging in its previously
announced partnership with Hyundai. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading.
When the market learned the truth about Canoo, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
CASTILLO BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Fuentes Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIO FUENTES, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CASTILLO BUILDERS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00807
(E.D. La., April 21, 2021) arises from Castillo Builders' failure
to pay Fuentes, and its other general laborers, appropriate
overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a work week as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The complaint alleges that as a general laborer, Plaintiff
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. In fact, a
typical work schedule requires Plaintiff to work more than 50 hours
per week, with many weeks requiring him to work even more.
Specifically, and by way of example, Plaintiff worked and was paid
only straight time for 52.5 hours for the week of February 26, 2021
and 51.5 hours for the week of April 2, 2021. Castillo, however,
did not pay Plaintiff and the class members for any overtime for
hours worked over 40 in a work week. Castillo denied the rights of
Plaintiff and the class members guaranteed to them under the FLSA,
asserts the complaint.
Plaintiff Elio Fuentes was employed by Castillo as a general
laborer from November 2020 through April 2021.
Castillo Builders is a Louisiana limited liability company that may
be served through its registered agent, Doris Millan, 6328 Farrel
Drive, Slidell, LA 70460. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Zachary R. Smith, Esq.
HMS Law Firm
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 590
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 356-0110
Facsimile: (504) 356-0104
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Champignon Brands Inc. (OTC: SHRMF)
between March 27, 2020 and February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Champignon
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Champignon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.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) Champignon had undisclosed material weaknesses and
insufficient financial controls; (2) Champignon's previously issued
financial statements were false and unreliable; (3) Champignon's
earlier reported financial statements would need to be restated;
(4) Champignon's acquisitions involved an undisclosed related
party; (5) as a result of the foregoing and subsequent reporting
delays and issues, the British Columbia Securities Commission would
suspend Champignon's from trading; and (6) as a result, defendants'
statements about Champignon'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 June 9,
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-2057.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 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
CHICAGO, IL: Lawsuit Mulled Over Crawford Coal Plant Implosion
--------------------------------------------------------------
WLS reports that the implosion of an old coal plant in Chicago's
Little Village neighborhood has sparked new controversy and also
plans for a lawsuit.
The demolition on April 10 sent a cloud of dust into the
neighborhood and residents want to know why the city let it happen.
A local attorney plans to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of
residents.
The controlled implosion sent dust particles all across the
neighborhood, leaving behind a thick cloud of smoke.
"About 10 minutes later you started seeing the haze and the smoke
come through the neighborhood," said Daniel Reynoso, Little Village
resident. "And a couple of minutes later it just got thicker and
thicker."
On a city-approved permit, Hilco Redevelopment Partners imploded
this smokestack at the old Crawford Coal Plant on April 10.
Reynoso is a community organizer, and said Hilco had pledged to
bring the smokestack down with restrictions.
"In a previous meeting with Hilco, the question was asked if they
were going to use explosives or demolition in the remediation of
the old facility. Their answer was always no," he said.
Mayor Lori Lightfoot said her office was reassured the demolition
would be controlled. But minutes after the implosion a massive dust
cloud fell on the site and throughout Little Village.
"The city was given repeated assurances that Hilco had a solid plan
to contain the dust. Clearly that didn't happen," Chicago Mayor
Lori Lightfoot said.
City leaders were furious over the aftermath on April 11.
"The fear and anxiety that residents feel about COVID-19 have only
been exasperated with this situation," Ald. Michael Rodriguez
said.
Several alderman have called for an inspector general investigation
into the demolition.
The city has also cited and fined Hilco, ordering the company to
conduct a full cleanup of the neighborhood.
Maclovio, a photographer, captured imagines of the fog-like haze
that fell upon the neighborhood.
"It looked like something out of the movies, you couldn't even see
in front of you," Maclovio said.
The city is now working to hand out face masks to residents in
affected areas as health officials examine the air quality and
collected samples of dust.
Calling the images of dust "outrageous," the mayor said she's
ordered a full report of what happened at the site.
"I know the significant health disparities that the Little Village
community faces, just as many other communities across Chicago
face. So to see a dust cloud from a demolition roll across homes
and businesses is simply outrageous," an angered Lightfoot said,
standing before the construction site in question Easter Sunday
morning.
"This is just a recurring pattern of gross negligence and
incompetence by every level," said Lucky Camargo, Chicago
resident.
Pending review, all non-emergency demo work across the city,
including the Little Village site, has been stopped.
Hilco Redevelopment Partners released a statement about the
demolition on April 11. Hilco released an updated statement on
April 13 outlining a "thorough corrective action plan."
"We are working cooperatively with the City of Chicago to review
the demolition event undertaken by our contractor," the company
said. "We are sensitive to the concerns of the community and we
will continue to work in full cooperation."
Chicago Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady
answered questions on April 11 about how dust inhalation could
exacerbate the risks of COVID-19 for residents.
"I would not have major concern at this point based on what we know
now," Arwady said.
Arwady said before the implosion Hilco had met asbestos standards.
But, the commissioner could not elaborate on any data collected
since the April 10 incident.
Regardless of what was released into the air with it, Arwady said a
dust cloud is "a problem," and encouraged residents to monitor
their health and reach out to their doctors if needed. [GN]
COLORADO: Class Action Mulled Over ID.me Identity Verification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kati Weis, writing for CBS4, reports that Rachel Hall had been on
unemployment since January, until she got a request to verify her
identity through ID.me in March. She tried multiple times to follow
the directions provided, but was unsuccessful.
"I kept getting weird error code, on error code, on error code,"
Hall explained.
She tried searching what the error code meant, but couldn't find
any answers. She tried emailing ID.me's helpdesk, but never got a
response.
She also tried calling the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment for help.
"They would say, 'You know, I'm so sorry, you're not the first
person that's dealing with this, unfortunately we're not trained on
ID.me, and we don't have access to the inside of the system, so
you'll have to work with ID.me directly to get help,'" Hall said.
"It's just been circles."
As a result of the unsuccessful verification attempts, Hall hasn't
received unemployment money in a month.
"It's aggravating," Hall said. "I'm at the point where, I need to
get groceries, I need to pay my car bill . . . I don't want it to
be repossessed or, or to lose anything."
She's not alone.
Terri Kirby also hasn't been able to verify her identity with
ID.me. She's so frustrated, she wrote a formal complaint to the
Colorado Attorney General's Office.
"Shutting off benefits, and then telling people they have to figure
this out, and when they get stuck, there's no one that they can
reach out to, that is unacceptable," Kirby said.
Kirby is also pursuing legal options for a possible class-action
lawsuit against the state.
"My main intention is to stop unemployment from unjustly cutting
off people's benefits, while working with a company that is not
providing the services that they're supposed to be providing in a
timely manner," Kirby said. "The effect this has on your mental
health . . . they want everybody out searching for work, and moving
forward, and yet they're removing the very foundation that many,
many, many people are depending on to be able to do that."
The CDLE required all claimants who had not previously verified
their identity to do so in order to continue receiving benefits.
So far, the department says about 14% of claimants trying to verify
their identity are unsuccessful, and will need to get help from a
trusted referee video chat. The department would not say exactly
how many people that is.
Kirby said the wait time for her trusted referee video chat was
five hours.
"I was like, 'oh my gosh, do I just have to be available for the
next five hours,' I had things on my calendar," Kirby said. "So, I
went about my day, never heard anything; I kept checking my email
and my texts to see if anybody had contacted me, and I called the
Unemployment Insurance office on Tuesday, and I think Wednesday I
called twice, and was told both times, that there's nothing they
can do."
READ MORE:
Denver Police Officer Jacob Marsh Arrested On Investigation Of
Vehicular Assault Charges After Head-On Crash
The CDLE said of the 1,134,126 claimants that have been referred to
ID.me since January, only 137,027 identities have been verified.
The department believes that's because the majority of claimants
are fraudsters.
So far, the CDLE says more than $91 million in unemployment money
has been released to legitimate claimants as a result of the ID.me
verification system.
ID.me's CEO Blake Hall wrote in a statement the company is
"perfectly capable of handling new claims volumes in tens of
states; however, when states run hundreds of thousands to millions
of claimants through our system all at once to verify accumulated
claims, then wait times increase."
The CEO also said the company is hiring more staff to handle the
volume.
"At the same time, we are actively defeating Russian attackers
attempting to bypass our Face Liveness technology, international
crime rings out of Uzbekistan, and social engineering attacks
originating from Nigeria," he wrote. "We are also fighting off
global botnet attacks attempting to perform account takeover.
Fighting these professional attackers contributes to operational
complexity."
After CBS4 Inquired about Rachel Hall's case, she got a call from
ID.me, and was able to verify her identity. She was told she should
be receiving benefits again.
But she worries about potentially thousands of others who are still
struggling.
"We shouldn't have to go to the media," she said. "The company
should have seen this coming, and there should have been a quicker
response on their end, although I'm thankful that they were able to
escalate my case and get it resolved so quickly, I'm still very
concerned about families that aren't in the same position that I
am."
If you're having trouble verifying your identity, you can find
step-by-step guides here.
You can also try contacting ID.me directly here.
If after trying those methods, you're still struggling, contact
CBS4 investigator Kati Weis.
The following is ID.me's entire written statement to CBS4:
"Nearly 90% of applicants pass ID.me via automated means in just a
few minutes using a computer, phone, and a few pieces of
documentation that most people would carry in their wallet. Those
who are unable to use the automated process -- or those who have
come with the wrong documents or copies of documents rather than
originals -- are directed to the video chat process. It's important
to note that ID.me is the only vendor in the United States that can
verify identities via video chat. In states not partnering with
ID.me, those who don't have a credit history or a presence in
records do not have an option to verify their identity online.
We are currently working with more than 22 states including
Colorado to combat massive unemployment fraud. Wait times for the
video chat feature are increasing because several states, including
Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and California, are sending months to a
full year's worth of claimants through ID.me at once to combat
fraud within existing claims pools. ID.me is perfectly capable of
handling new claims volumes in tens of states; however, when states
run hundreds of thousands to millions of claimants through our
system all at once to verify accumulated claims, then wait times
increase.
For new claims, we see fraud rates of over 30% for Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance (PUA) claims. Because of the high fraud
rate for new claims, many states want to make sure no additional
taxpayer dollars are lost and are therefore asking ID.me to verify
all claimants - both new and existing claimants who have been
receiving benefits since March. For backlogged claims, we're seeing
fraud rates north of 50%. This has been causing wait times to
increase.
At the same time, we are actively defeating Russian attackers
attempting to bypass our Face Liveness technology, international
crime rings out of Uzbekistan, and social engineering attacks
originating from Nigeria. We are also fighting off global botnet
attacks attempting to perform account takeover. Fighting these
professional attackers contributes to operational complexity.
We know how important these benefits are and are working 24/7 to
help claimants. To support the influx in claimants, we are also
hiring video chat staff, almost 40 to 50 employees a week, so we
can support more claimants in the process of receiving their
benefits as quickly as possible. I also want to emphasize that we
are the only company in the country that can remotely verify
individuals who don't have a presence in records. Individuals who
fall into these categories in states that don't use ID.me have
little to no recourse at all to prove their identity online." [GN]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Columbia
University trustees settled a 28,000-person class action
challenging the school's retirement plans less than a week before
the case was scheduled to begin an in-person trial, the parties
told a Manhattan federal judge.
The settlement notice comes one week after Judge George B. Daniels
ordered all designated witnesses to testify in person at the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act trial, scheduled to begin
April 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. [GN]
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: DeForest Sues Over Confusing Debt Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00772 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent mail-based debt
collection correspondence to consumers and debtors, including the
Plaintiff, on time-barred debts without advising the consumers and
debtors that the statutes of limitations for filing legal claims to
collect on those debts had expired, and thus, that legal claims
cannot be brought against them past of the statute of limitations
and that making even the smallest of payments renews the expired
statutes of limitations. Further, the Defendant allegedly used the
term "settlement" on its debt collection letter to mislead debtors
and consumers into believing that legal action against them was
pending.
Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. is a debt collection firm
based in Dickson City, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Telephone: (302) 722-6885
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
CONTAINER STORE: Worth Avenue Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Worth Avenue Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Ta-boo
Restaurant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Case No.
50-2021-CA-003091 was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on April 12, 2021, and assigned Case No.
9:21-cv-80700-AMC.
On March 8, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced this putative class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "State Court
Action"). The Plaintiff filed the State Court Action as a putative
nationwide class action seeking insurance coverage from
Underwriters on behalf of "all restaurants that have suffered
business interruption and lost income as a result of the Civil
Authority Orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic." The
Plaintiff asserts that "due to the nature and commerce involved,
the Plaintiff believes the Class consists of thousands of insureds
nationwide, making joinder of the Class members impractical."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Armando P. Rubio, Esq.
FIELDS HOWELL LLP,
9155 So. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1012
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (786) 870-5600
Fax: (855) 802-5821
Email: arubio@fieldshowell.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Debt Letter "Deceptive," Cowan Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL COWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00568-UNA (D. Del., April 23,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant Convergent sent a misleading
debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding her alleged debt
owed to T-Mobile, USA. The letter is deceptive because it implies
that in exchange of 50% of the balance the consumer will achieve
some form of settlement, when in actuality it is unclear what form
of settlement the letter is offering. The letter states that
T-Mobile will recall the account and cease all collection activity
but does not clarify what will occur with the rest of the balance
and whether the rest of the balance would be collected by another
collection company in the future. Further, the letter fails clearly
state whether the account will be reinstated upon payment of 50% of
the balance, the suit asserts.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection firm with its
principal place of business located at 28 Liberty Street, New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Telephone: (302) 722-6885
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kirksey Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing Inc. The case is styled as Maurice Kirksey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01644-AT-JSA (N.D.
Ga., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. --
https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramirez Files Suit in California Superior Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Building
Brands, et al. The case is styled as Claudia Ramirez, Lilian B.
Cabrera, Alicia Fernandez, Rosa Hernandez, Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez
Lozano, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Dulce Nieto, individually and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Cornerstone Building Brands, Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation,
Ply Gem Residential Solutions, Ply Gem Windows, Simonton Doors &
Windows, unknown business entities, Case No.
34-2021-00298527-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
12, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Cornerstone Building Brands --
https://www.cornerstonebuildingbrands.com/ -- is one of the leaders
in the commercial construction industry and is the #1 manufacturer
of windows, vinyl siding, insulated metal panels, metal roofing and
wall systems and metal accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
CREDIT SUISSE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Bellini, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP successfully represented Credit Suisse
in a class action.
Plaintiffs alleged that Credit Suisse and other banks violated the
antitrust laws by colluding to manipulate U.S. Treasury auctions
and the pricing of Treasury securities in the when-issued market,
and that the banks and certain trading platforms engaged in a group
boycott to prevent exchange-style trading of Treasury securities in
the secondary market.
On March 31, 2021, Judge Paul Gardephe of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Credit Suisse's
motions to dismiss all claims against it, ruling that plaintiffs
had failed to state a claim against defendants because plaintiffs
did not plausibly allege an antitrust conspiracy.
The Cahill's team included David G. Januszewski (Picture), Herbert
S. Washer, Elai Katz, Thorn Rosenthal, Tara H. Curtin, and John
MacGregor. [GN]
CYTODYN INC: Scott+Scott Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit against CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn")
(OTCQB: CYDY) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws. If you purchased CytoDyn shares between
March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive, and have suffered a
loss, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CytoDyn made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding its development-stage drug Leronlimab.
Beginning on March 5, 2021, CytoDyn began issuing press releases
that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing data. In these
releases, CytoDyn disclosed that the primary endpoint for the
Leronlimab study (all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not
statistically significant. Upon the opening of trading, CytoDyn
shares dropped over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On
March 9, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at
$2.35.
What You Can Do
If you purchased CytoDyn securities between March 27, 2020 and
March 9, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your
legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew
at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff
deadline is May 17, 2021.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
Contacts:
Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]
DEARBORN BISTRO: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Johnson Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTASIA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DEARBORN BISTRO, LLC d/b/a
PANTHEION CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-10797-MAG-EAS (E.D.
Mich., April 9, 2021) brings this class and collective action
complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff has worked as exotic dancer for the Defendant at the
Defendant's Pantheion Club in Dearborn, Michigan for the period of
about July 2017 through November 2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified her and
other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent contractors
when they should have been classified under the FLSA and MMWL as
employees. Throughout their employment with the Defendant, they
were not paid any wages or any compensation for all hours they
worked each week. In addition, the Defendant required them to pay
the club or its ownership or management house fees and/or kickback
of $30.00-$100.00 or more for each shift they worked, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages and all tips and gratuities
unlawfully taken by the Defendant, as well as statutory liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.
Dearborn Bistro, LLC d/b/a Pantheion Club operates a strip club
featuring exotic dancers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
-and –
David A. Kowalski, Esq.
MELON PRIES KOWALSKI, P.C.
2150 Butterfield Drive, Suite 100
Troy, MI 48084
Tel: (248) 649-1330
E-mail: dkowalski@mellonpries.com
DEYOUNG PORK: Faces Suit Over Worker's Unpaid Wages, Sexual Assault
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. DEYOUNG PORK, INC., DEYOUNG HOG FARM, LLC,
and JOEL DEYOUNG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00343 (W.D. Mich.,
April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
failure to pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's Workforce
Opportunity Wage Act, for violations of her rights on the basis of
sex under the Fair Housing Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil
Rights Act, and for the common-law intentional torts of assault,
battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' farm from 2008 until March
2019.
DeYoung Pork, Inc. is a pig farm owner and operator, with its
headquarters in Plainwell, Michigan.
DeYoung Hog Farm, LLC is a pig farm owner and operator, with its
headquarters in Plainwell, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
Robin B. Wagner, Esq.
PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER BONANNI & RIVERS
117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
Royal Oak, MI 48067
Telephone: (248) 398-9800
E-mail: rwagner@pittlawpc.com
mbonanni@pittlawpc.com
brivers@pittlawpc.com
- and –
Jessica Glynn, Esq.
YWCA KALAMAZOO
353 E. Michigan Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 743-9463
E-mail: jglynn@ywcakalamazoo.org
EBANG INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: EBON)
resulting from allegations that Ebang may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Ebang securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2075.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.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 6, 2021, Hindenburg Research published
a report entitled: "Ebang: Yet Another Crypto 'China Hustle'
Absconding With U.S. Investor Cash[.]" The report alleges, among
other things, that the Chinese cryptocurrency company is directing
proceeds from its initial public offering (IPO) last year into a
"series of opaque deals with insiders and questionable
counterparties." Also according to the report, Ebang raised $21
million in November 2020 during a secondary offering claiming the
proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that allegedly
$21 million was directed to repay related-party loans to a relative
of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
Further, the report noted that EBang's earlier efforts to go public
on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange failed due to widespread media
coverage of its relationship with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer
online lending scheme that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in
2018, with $655 million "vanish(ing) into thin air."
On this news, EBang's stock price fell 12% to close at $5.53 on
April 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging
investors.
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 4 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.
Contacts:
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]
EBIX INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Class Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) and reminds investors of the April 23,
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 $50,000 investing in Ebix stock or
options between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021 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/EBIX.
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)
that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the
business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in
Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of
2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company's internal
controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and
(3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to
resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Specifically, on February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix
revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned
"as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to
evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions
that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the
Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that
there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design
controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle
sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In
addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of
$30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust
account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020.
On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
The 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 Ebix's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
ELANCO ANIMAL: McDermotts Sue Over Unsafe Flea & Tick Collars
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCDERMOTT AND CHRISTINA MCDERMOTT v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH,
INC. and BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC, and BAYER HEALTHCARE ANIMAL HEALTH,
INC., Case No.: 4:21-cv-461 (E.D. Mo., April 21, 2021) is a class
action brought pursuant to Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act
seeking money damages arising from damages to the Class, including
but not limited to the purchase price paid by Plaintiffs and the
Class for the Seresto Flea and Tick Collar products developed,
manufactured, marketed and/or sold by Defendants.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants knowingly marketed and
sold toxic flea and tick collars to Plaintiffs and unwitting
consumers in the State of Missouri. Among other things, and only
recently revealed as a result of public records requests to the
Environmental Protection Agency, Defendants concealed from
Plaintiffs and the Class that the Seresto Flea & Tick Collars they
purchased had been associated with the deaths and/or serious
injuries of thousands of pets as well as injuries to humans.
Defendants concealed the significant risks these products presented
to Missouri pet owners, and instead represented that the products
were both safe and effective, and charged premium prices for their
products on this basis, notes the complaint. Defendants continue to
tout the collars' safety and conceal their risks, the complaint
adds.
Plaintiffs Michael McDermott and Christina McDermott are a married
couple and are citizens and residents of Chesterfield, Missouri.
Plaintiffs purchased at least two flea and tick collars under
Defendants' Seresto brand. Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of
sale that use of Seresto Flea & Tick Collars was associated with
the deaths and/or serious injuries of thousands of pets, or of the
other dangers presented by the Seresto Collars.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with its
principal place of business in the State of Indiana. Elanco
represents itself as a "global animal health company" and from
approximately August of 2020 to the present has manufactured,
distributed, marketed, advertised and sold Seresto Collars in the
stream of commerce, including throughout the State of Missouri.
Bayer Healthcare, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in the State of New York.
Bayer Healthcare Animal Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in the State of Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Lumaghi, Esq.
Lia Dowd, Esq.
DOWD & DOWD, P.C.
211 North Broadway, Suite 4050
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: 314-621-2500
Fax: 314-621-2503
E-mail: bill@dowdlaw.net
alex@dowdlaw.net
lia@dowdlaw.net
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Grogan Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Enhanced Recovery Company.
The case is styled as Justin Grogan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, Case
No. 8:21-cv-00966 (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Enhanced Recovery Company (ERC) -- https://www.ercbpo.com/ -- is a
debt collection agency located in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI, LLP
300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Email: yosef@cml.legal
EPIC GAMES: Parent Challenges Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that on April 5 in
the Northern District of California, a parent opposed Epic Games'
motion to dismiss the class-action suit brought against it
regarding the plaintiff's minor child's use of real money to pay
for virtual items in the popular video game Fortnite.
Previously, Epic Games filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that
the plaintiffs lack standing, or, in the alternative, asked for the
matter to be considered through arbitration. February's
class-action suit alleged that Epic Games misled minors to use real
money for in-game purchases for nonrefundable virtual currency in
video game Fortnite without involving parents or guardians in the
purchasing process.
According to the opposition, "Epic Games seeks to evade this
Court's jurisdiction over those claims so that it might conclude a
settlement in North Carolina state court that would not get
approved here."
In particular, the plaintiffs noted that in C.W. v. Epic Games, "a
minor plaintiff no different from the plaintiff here brought class
claims seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from
Epic Games on causes of action founded on a minor's legal right to
disaffirm purchases of virtual items made in Fortnite and related
theories." The K.W. plaintiffs claimed that, in the other suit,
Epic Games moved to compel arbitration; however, Judge Gonzalez
Rogers denied the motion because C.W. disaffirmed those agreements.
Then, Epic Games moved to dismiss the C.W. suit, claiming that
since C.W.'s Fortnite purchases were "concluded in the Apple
(iTunes) and Sony (PlayStation) marketplaces, C.W. had no
disaffirmation claim directly against Epic Games." However, the
judge rejected this claim, and, subsequently, the C.W. suit
survived these motions. The K.W. plaintiffs noted that the instant
action "is a continuation of C.W., filed one month after it was
voluntarily dismissed."
The K.W. plaintiffs claimed that, similarly, the plaintiff is a
minor Fortnite player seeking relief and the class-action was
"founded on a minor's legal right to disaffirm purchases of virtual
items in Fortnite and related theories." The plaintiffs stated that
the minor class and claims in K.W. are similar to that in C.W.
"(T)he only significant difference between the two cases is that
this one also involves claims brought by the minor's guardian on
behalf of a class of California parents . . . but nothing in the
motion to dismiss or compel hinges on that difference," according
to the operative plaintiffs.
Furthermore, the plaintiffs contended that Epic Games "should not
have filed its motion here," adding that Epic Games "does not argue
that Judge Gonzalez Rogers' rulings were mistaken, so those are a
given. And its efforts to show that this case is different are
either factually inaccurate or legally irrelevant."
In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that Epic Games' claims that
the instant action was moot because it offered K.W. a refund, which
the plaintiff rejected, is barred by Ninth Circuit precedent, which
held that "a defendant cannot moot a class action by satisfying the
named plaintiff's individual claim." Therefore, the plaintiffs
argued that the defendant's "effort to characterize the refund as
its ‘acceptance' of a 'proposal' K.W. made by disaffirming his
contracts - and not an attempt to moot the case by satisfying his
individual claim - does not make sense."
The plaintiffs argued that Epic Games' argument that K.W. lacks
standing "because K.W. did not make any purchases from it is
make-weight." Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that K.W.
completed at least one in-game Fortnite purchase.
According to the plaintiffs, Epic Games' assertion that K.W. "must
arbitrate because he clicked agreements requiring acceptance by an
adult was rejected in C.W." Additionally, the plaintiffs proffered
that Epic Games' claims that it thought "K.W. was acting as agent
for an adult is wrong because, among other reasons, Epic Games
knows that it is dealing with children."
The plaintiffs added that Epic Games waived its right to arbitrate
"by affirmatively and through dubious tactics seeking to channel
Plaintiffs' claims to a North Carolina state court for
resolution."
Lastly, the K.W. plaintiffs averred that Epic Games' motion to
dismiss "rests on multiple assertions of fact that are both
disputed and questionable."
Therefore, the plaintiffs ask the court to grant leave to conduct
discovery for subject matter jurisdiction and arbitrability.
The plaintiff is represented by One LLP and Bay Advocacy PLLC.
Epic Games is represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.
[GN]
EREDI PISANO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eredi Pisano USA,
Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Eredi Pisano USA,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02237 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Eredi Pisano USA Inc. -- https://eredipisano.com/ -- is a high-end
Italian clothing company based in Rome that specializes in fine
garments as well as made-to-measure garments for men.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC A/A/O JORDAN RIMERT, v. ESURANCE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 124037008 (Fla.
Cir., Hillsborough Cty., March 30, 2021) is an action asserting a
class action claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Statutes.
The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the statutory interest
required by the Florida Statutes section 627.736(4)(d) because the
Defendant did not calculate interest in accordance with the Florida
Statutes section 55.03, which sets a variable interest rate, but
instead paid interest at a fixed rate from the date of notice of
the covered loss.
The Plaintiff contends that for all claims similarly situated,
where the Defendant made an overdue payment to an insured or the
insured's assignee, Defendant calculated and paid interest at a
fixed rate rather than the variable rate set forth in Florida
Statutes.
The Plaintiff is a Florida corporation authorized to do business,
and doing business, in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The Defendant is a foreign for profit corporation authorized to
transact, and transacting, insurance business in Hillsborough
County, Florida, and at all times material hereto provided no-fault
(Personal Injury Protection (PIP)) insurance coverage throughout
the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.
LAWRENCE M. KOPELMAN, P.A.
7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 462-6855
Facsimile:(954) 206-0188
E-mail: LMK@kopelblank.com
- and -
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
91650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
ETHICON INC: Shine Lawyers Files Second Mesh Implant Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a
national plaintiff firm has launched new proceedings against
medical device manufacturers Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson seeking
compensation for women who were implanted with defective mesh
implants.
Earlier on Wednesday, 7 April, Shine Lawyers filed a second class
action in the Federal Court on behalf of women who were implanted
with defective mesh products after 4 July 2017. Those implanted
with the pelvic floor repair systems, Shien argues, may have
experienced symptoms of complications such as chronic pain, painful
intercourse and incontinence.
This is the second class action brought by Shine against Ethicon
and Johnson & Johnson, with the first -- which Shine called "the
largest women's health class action in Australia's history" --
seeing the court find in favour of the plaintiffs.
In her November 2019 judgment, Justice Anna Katzmann found that
pelvic mesh implants sold by Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon were
"not fit for purpose" and of "unmerchantable quality".
"These defective mesh products have eroded in some women's bodies,
moving through tissue and penetrating or sticking to organs,
causing debilitating chronic pain," posited Shine practice leader
Rebecca Jancauskas.
"We have seen first-hand the terrible impact these products can
have on women's lives and this drives our team to pursue all
available avenues to seek reparations for these women."
Last month, that landmark decision was upheld, after the defendants
appealed this time last year.
Katzmann J had ruled that 4 July 2017 -- the date on which the
trial for that class action commenced -- was the cut-off for entry
into the class for that first action, and as such, Ms Jancauskas is
heading up new proceedings for women excluded the first time
around, who "understandably felt distressed that their suffering
would not be recognised and they would not be eligible for
compensation".
"We know there are thousands of women who were implanted with these
defective products or who have developed complications after this
date, that's why we've continued to fight for justice for these
women, so none are left behind," she said.
The firm said that "hundreds" of women who registered their
interest for the earlier proceedings have been identified as
potentially eligible group members in the new proceedings.
The news follows the filing of separate proceedings by AJB Stevens
Lawyers against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific
Pty Ltd on behalf of women who have suffered "debilitating
injuries" caused by mesh implants that "were not of merchantable
quality and did not have an acceptable quality". [GN]
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Frederick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Britteny Frederick, Alexander Pruefer, Jinger
Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 2021CH01276 was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
April 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02190 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
ExamSoft -- https://examsoft.com/ -- helps academic institutions
improve student learning with secure assessment tools and software
that provide valuable data, insights, and reports.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
FELDMAN LAW: Intervention in Sullivan Arbitration Proceedings Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT SULLIVAN, FRANK DELLACROCE, et al., Plaintiffs
v. STEWART A. FELDMAN, THE FELDMAN LAW FIRM LLP, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. H-20-2236 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H.
Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, denied the Defendants' emergency motion
and an amended emergency motion seeking a swift response.
The Court denied the motions because the circumstances the
Defendants present are neither an emergency, particularly in a
court dealing with the impact of a global pandemic, nor a basis for
the relief they seek.
The Defendants ask the Court to intervene in ongoing arbitration
proceedings by ruling on two issues: Whether the parties'
arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration; and whether a
discovery order requiring production of certain documents was
proper. The Defendants also challenge the Court's jurisdiction
over recently removed cases that are part of the sprawling set of
proceedings.
The parties' arbitration agreement is one reason Judge Rosenthal
declines to provide the relief the Defendants seek. He says the
agreement delegates to the arbitrator not only the exclusive right
to decide issues of "arbitrability," but also to resolve "all
disputes and challenges to the formation and enforceability of this
arbitration agreement." The parties stated their intent to "divest
the courts of all powers in disputes involving the parties, except
to compel arbitration, and to confirm, vacate or enforce award.
The courts will have no jurisdiction over legal or equitable
(including injunctive) matters. The arbitration decision will be
final and binding in all respects."
Judge Rosenthal holds that this broad delegation clause and the
absence of any explicit provision barring class actions in the
arbitration, mean that the Court has no basis to intrude at this
stage. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that parties may
delegate arbitrability and arbitration issues to the arbitrator in
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417 (2019); Henry
Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 530
(2019); and Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68-69
(2010). The Fifth Circuit has also consistently held that the
availability of class arbitration is a "gateway" arbitrability
issue. If the parties agree to delegate arbitrability issues to
the arbitrator, then they agree to delegate the class-arbitration
issue, unless their agreement contains a clear class-arbitration
bar.
Beyond this point, Judge Rosenthal notes that the Court's
previously expressed reluctance to intrude in the middle of an
ongoing contract-based arbitration remains. The reluctance is
reinforced by the appearance in the current record that the factual
basis for the emergency relief the Defendants seek -- a request by
arbitrators for court guidance -- is, at best unclear, and at least
overstated.
On the discovery issue, the courts are clear that when, as in the
case, the arbitration clause is broad and the arbitrator's
exclusive powers include discovery, the court should not step in to
second guess discovery rulings during the arbitration.
Finally, the Judge holds that the argument as to the lack of
removal jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for the relief the
defendants seek. Among other gaps, the argument fails sufficiently
to account for the relationship between the recently removed cases
and the case that the Defendants themselves removed to federal
court, with no indication of an uncertain jurisdictional basis for
doing so. The argument also glosses over the fact that the
recently removed cases were filed in an attempt to undermine the
Court's order compelling arbitration.
Judge Rosenthal concludes that there is no emergency giving the
case the privilege to jump to the front of the line, leapfrogging
over other cases with more acute needs for prompt judicial time and
attention. There is no emergency that warrants the relief the
Defendants seek. The parties picked arbitration. The parties
agreed that the arbitration would proceed until the issuance of the
final award, which might then be appropriate for judicial review
and enforcement. The parties must comply with the choices they
made.
Hence, the motion and amended emergency motion are denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5s94ee78 from Leagle.com.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Approves Emissions Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Bellini, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that a
Manhattan federal judge approved a $110 million settlement for Fiat
Chrysler investors who sued when the automaker's alleged lies about
emissions practices came to light, but he lopped about $3 million
from a $32.2 million fee request made by lawyers who brought the
class action.
omerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm successfully assisted the
plaintiff on the class action. Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP acted for
the defendant.
The Rosen Law Firm team was led by Sara Esther Fuks.
The Pomerantz team comprised of Michael Jonathan Wernke, Joseph
Alexander Hood, II, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, and Veronica Valeria
Montenegro.
The case is styled Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V. [GN]
FIBROGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of FibroGen Inc.
("Fibrogen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FGEN) investors concerning
the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal
securities laws.
If you suffered a loss on your FibroGen 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/fibrogen-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 April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a
statement "provid[ing] clarification of certain prior disclosures
of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat
Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia of chronic kidney
disease ('CKD')." Specifically, the Company stated that the safety
analyses "included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors."
FibroGen further revealed that, based on analyses using the
pre-specified stratification factors, the Company "cannot conclude
that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in
dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to
epoetin-alfa."
On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as 40.65%,
during intraday trading on April 7, 2021.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
FibroGen should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
FIRST EAGLE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Eagle
Investment Management, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne,
on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
First Eagle Investment Management, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03606-ER
(S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
First Eagle Investment Management -- https://www.feim.com/ -- is a
US investment management company based in New York City that is an
adviser to the First Eagle Funds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
FRANCIS FINANCIAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francis Financial,
Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Francis Financial, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03607 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Francis Financial, Inc. -- https://francisfinancial.com/ -- is an
award winning, Boutique Wealth Management and Financial Planning
firm dedicated to providing successful individuals and families
personalized financial guidance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
FRED ALGER: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Alger
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Fred
Alger Management, LLC, Fred Alger & Company, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03608 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fred Alger Management, Inc. --
https://www.alger.com/Pages/Home.aspx -- operates as an investment
management firm. The Company offers portfolio management and
advisory services to individuals, religious organizations,
foundations, endowments, corporate pensions, public plans,
institutions, and pooled investment vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
GAP INC: Liberto Suit Removed to Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Pamela Liberto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00510 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on April 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00436-MMH-JBT to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap --
https://www.gapinc.com/en-us/ -- is an American worldwide clothing
and accessories retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
- and -
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO PA
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 E. Palmetto Park Road Suite 500
Boca Raton, Fl 33433
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Fax: (561) 750-3364
Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jordan David Maglich, Esq.
Ashley Elizabeth Trehan, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - TAMPA FL
401 E Jackson Street, Ste. 2400
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 222-2098
Email: jordan.maglich@bipc.com
ashley.trehan@bipc.com
- and -
Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
COOLEY LLP - SAN FRANCISCO CA
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Phone: (415) 693-2181
Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
GC SERVICES: Anderson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership, et al. The case is styled as Brandi Anderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC
Services Limited Partnership, John Does 1-25, Case No.
5:21-cv-00406-XR (W.D. Tex., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
GC Services -- https://www.gcserv.com/ -- is the largest
privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and
collection agency services in North America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
GENUINE DATA: Faces Jackson Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL E. JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. GENUINE DATA SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00211-DJN (E.D. Va., March 30, 2021) is a consumer class
action for damages, costs and attorney's fees under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act brought against the Defendant, a consumer reporting
agency that allegedly violates the FCRA's basic protections by
failing to ensure that the information that it sells about
consumers is as accurate as possible and reportable under the law.
This case arises because GDS routinely violates these FCRA
provisions in its issuance of consumer reports to resellers like
non-party RealPage. RealPage, using the moniker "The Leasing Desk,"
sells consumer reports to landlords for use in tenant screening.
Such use brings those reports under the ambit of the FCRA.
In this instance, GDS provided to The Leasing Desk data about
Plaintiff which The Leasing Desk then furnished to the Plaintiff's
potential landlord. The GDS report included a decades-old traffic
citation that was not permitted to be reported under the FCRA's
obsolescence provision, the suit says.
After Plaintiff was denied a housing opportunity as a result of
this report, the Plaintiff requested a copy of his full file from
RealPage, from which he was able to learn that GDS was the at least
one source of the outdated traffic citation.
The Plaintiff brings nationwide class claims against GDS for its
failure to properly filter such outdated information from reports
it sells to resellers like The Leasing Desk. The only derogatory
public-record information the FCRA permits to be reported after
seven years are convictions of crimes, and the traffic violation
GDS reported to The Leasing Desk is not one.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
Newport News, VA 23601
Telephone: (757) 930-3660
Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
craig@clalegal.com
- and -
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Telephone: (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
GONZO MARKETING: Faces Johnson Suit Over CSRs' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GONZO MARKETING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a GMS CONNECT, a
Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
0:21-cv-60775-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative (CSR) since approximately July 2020 and continues to
work for the Defendant in the state of Florida.
The Plaintiff claims that although he worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek throughout her employment with the Defendant, the
Defendant refused to properly pay her lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate
of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the
Defendant allegedly failed to maintain proper time records as
mandated by the FLSA.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to
recover damages against the Defendant, including overtime wages at
the correct rate pursuant to the FLSA, an equal amount of
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
Gonzo Marketing Services, LLC provides customer contact services to
health plans, insurance companies and other commercial entities.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Tel: (407) 574-4999
Fax: (833) 423-5864
E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
npacheco@theleachfirm.com
HEALTH NET: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Confidential Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., HEALTH NET,
LLC, and ACCELLION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-02975 (N.D.
Cal., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of
confidence, breach of contract, and violations of the California
Consumer Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Confidentiality in Medical Information Act, the
California HIV Disclosure Laws, and the Constitutional Right to
Privacy.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard and
protect the sensitive information of their customers following a
data breach from December 2020 to January 2021. The Defendants'
inaction to address the vulnerabilities of Accellion's File
Transfer Appliance (FTA) software caused an unauthorized third
party to access certain files and data of numerous customers of
Accellion. The Defendants were well aware of the data security
shortcomings in the FTA product. Nevertheless, Accellion continued
to use FTA with its clients, putting Accellion's file transfer
service clients and their clients' customers and employees at risk
of being impacted by a breach, the suit says.
Health Net of California, Inc. is an insurance company located in
California.
Health Net, LLC is a provider of health plans and services,
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
Accellion, Inc. is a software company based in Palo Alto,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Matthew B. George, Esq.
Mario M. Choi, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 772-4700
Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
mchoi@kaplanfox.com
- and –
Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com
HERRON RESIDENCE: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $5.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsey St-Pierre, writing for The Suburban, reports that residents
and their families have reached a $5.5 million settlement with the
Herron Residence management in a class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Barbara Schneider whose mother
Mary Schneider (93) died while residing at the Herron last April.
It alleged inhumane and degrading maltreatment resulting from the
management's failure to ensure continued and adequate care.
Lawyer Arthur Wechsler, representing the plaintiffs, confirmed that
the agreement was signed with Groupe Katasa representatives.
Surviving residents who were living at the long-term care facility
during the first wave of COVID, the estates of deceased residents
and the next of kin of the deceased will share the settlement
amount. Eligible parties to the class action are expected to
receive payment by the end of 2021.
The settlement is pending a judge's authorization of the agreement.
A date is scheduled before a Quebec Superior Court judge on April
30.
The 47 deaths that occurred at the Herron is at the centre of a
coroner's inquest which has been delayed at the request of the
Herron owners to fall 2021 as they are waiting to see if they will
be facing criminal charges.
Investigations are still in progress by the regional health
authority (CIUSSS) as well as the Montreal police (SPVM).
Groupe Katasa is no longer the owners of the Herron Residence but
still runs six other residences for the elderly in Quebec. [GN]
HIGHMARK INC: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Reed Ward, writing for TribLive, reports that a nurse who
worked for Highmark Inc. reviewing insurance coverage authorization
requests filed a federal lawsuit against the company on April 6,
alleging that it failed to pay required overtime.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, seeks
class-action status and includes claims for violations of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.
It does not say how many nurses might make up the class.
Lynn Cole, who lives in Luzerne County, worked for Highmark as a
care management nurse from June 2017 to Sept. 24, 2019, the lawsuit
said.
Highmark classified the nurses as exempt from overtime, the
complaint said, but permitted Cole and other nurses in similar
positions to work more than 40 hours per week.
"Specifically, when plaintiff questioned her supervisor about not
being compensated for working overtime . . .. plaintiff's
supervisor informed her that because she was working in a salaried
position, it was part of the job and that she needed to work as
much as was required to get the work done," the lawsuit said.
The class would include anyone who worked as a utilization
management nurse, utilization review nurse, medical management
nurse, nurse reviewer or care management nurse in the last three
years, the complaint continued.
Among the issues in the case, the lawsuit said, are whether
Highmark failed to keep adequate records for all hours worked and
whether its conduct was willful.
The lawsuit, filed by attorney Colleen Ramage Johnston, notes that
Highmark is among the 10 largest health insurers in the United
States, serving 5.2 million people in Pennsylvania, Delaware and
West Virginia.
A message left with a spokesman for the company was not immediately
returned late on April 6. [GN]
HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Tenants Win Suit Over Utility Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma North, writing for WRIC, reports that from June 2014 to
September 2018, tenants of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing
Authority were charged high utility surcharges after their utility
allowances were not properly set. Following a class action lawsuit
against the HRHA. those tenants have been awarded $220,000 and a
waiver for certain charges.
According to the Legal Aid Justice Center, a group of tenants won
the lawsuit -- filed in April 2019 -- against the housing authority
on April 5. U.S. District Judge Hannah M. Lauck of the Eastern
District of Virginia Federal Court approved the settlement.
"Improperly implemented utility allowances are a common problem for
public housing. As we reach the conclusion of this case, we will
have been able to bring relief to public housing tenants across of
Central Virginia, having previously addressed the matter with the
other housing authorities as well," said Sylvia Jones, a Legal Aid
Justice Center attorney for the plaintiff tenants.
The settlement will be distributed among the involved tenants who
were overcharged for utilities. In addition to the payment, tenants
also had some of their gas and electric charges waived while the
lawsuit was underway. A release from LAJC, says this saved them
about $95,000. The lawsuit also negotiated a higher gas and
electric allowance for the tenants, LAJC estimates this will save
them $144,000 over the first three years.
According to federal law, people living in public housing should
not be charged over 30% of their income for rent and utilities. In
order to keep monthly bills under that income percentage tenants
are given utility allowances to cover their fees. Tenants at HRHA
had not been given the correct allowances and were overcharged.
"I brought this issue to the Legal Aid Justice Center over five
years ago and I am glad we are finally getting justice," said
Dorothy Flowers, a plaintiff and former HRHA resident in a LAJC
release.
Another former tenant quoted in the release, Natasha Brown, says
the bills shouldn't be so complicated that people need help
understanding them.
"The old bills were nearly impossible to figure out and it led to
my paying money I didn't owe," Brown said. "I am glad that no one
will have to deal with that in the future."
With the approval of the lawsuit, the HRHA will also be required to
provide more notices and details about utilities to tenant. This
will involve changes to notices, policies, billing statements and
leases. HRHA will also be required to suspend years worth of gas
and electricity charges. [GN]
I LOVE THIS BAR: Class in Young FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Amber Young, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. I Love This Bar LLC, d/b/a Park
Street Cantina, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20cv-3971 (S.D. Ohio),
Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification
Named Plaintiff Young brought the suit as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et
seq., as amended ("FLSA"), and as a Rule 23 class action under
Ohio's wage and hour laws. The Named Plaintiff is a former
hourly-paid, tipped, non-exempt employee of Park Street Cantina, a
nightclub in Columbus, Ohio. Granero Lounge, Short North Julep,
and Callahan's Bar and Rooftop are likewise Columbus nightclubs.
Mr. Michael owns the nightclub Defendants.
The Named Plaintiff's August 2020 Complaint alleges that although
she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week as a bartender,
the Defendants willfully failed to pay her overtime. She claims
that the Defendants willfully failed to notify her that they would
take a tip credit from her wages and that the Defendants unlawfully
retained some of her tips. Those allegations and related factual
assertions form the basis for her unpaid overtime and unpaid
minimum wage FLSA claims. Subsequently, Martin Vlas and Maxwell
Holcomb each filed a consent form seeking to join the action as
opt-in party plaintiffs.
The Defendants denied all claims and Park Street asserted
counterclaims for theft and violation of the faithless servant
doctrine against the Named Plaintiff. The Named Plaintiff moved to
dismiss both counterclaims which Park Street opposed the same day
that it filed Amended Counterclaims. The Amended Counterclaims
rendered the Named Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss moot.
The Named Plaintiff subsequently moved to dismiss Park Street's
Amended Counterclaims. After the Defendants lodged their
opposition, the Named Plaintiff withdrew her second motion to
dismiss in March 2021.
The Named Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on Jan. 6, 2021,
seeking conditional certification of the following FLSA collective
class: "All current and former hourly tipped employees of
Defendants during the three years preceding the filing of the
Motion on Jan. 6, 2021 and continuing through the final disposition
of the case."
She supports her Motion with her own declaration as well as a
declaration from Vlas. The declarants pertinently aver that they
were: (i) employed by Park Street as hourly, non-exempt, tipped
bartenders, with Vlas also working for Granero; (ii) not paid for
overtime hours worked; (iii) not notified that the Defendants would
take a tip credit; (iv) subject to the Defendants' managers'
improperly retaining tips from the tip pool; and (v) not paid
minimum wage.
The Defendants' Opposition and a Reply followed.
Judge Morrison determines that the Named Plaintiff has sustained
her modest burden of establishing that she is similarly situated to
proposed class members. The following class is conditionally
certified as a FLSA collective under Section 216(b): "All current
and former hourly tipped employees of the Defendants during the
three years preceding Jan. 16, 2021 and continuing through the
final disposition of the case."
Next, the Judge determines that the Notice is accurate and
informative and therefore approves same as well as the Consent to
Join Form with one alteration -- the addition of Maxwell Holcomb's
name at the end of the paragraph entitled "What is This Case
About?" At this stage, a three-year lookback period will be
utilized.
Because the Named Plaintiff raises no issue about difficulty in
locating potential collective members, and because a 45-day opt-in
period "satisfies the Court's concern of balancing the need for
speedy justice while at the same time allowing potential plaintiffs
time to fully consider their options," the Notice will be adjusted
to reflect a 45 day opt-in period.
The Named Plaintiff wants to deliver the Notice and Consent Form to
putative collective members via U.S. mail and e-mail. The
Defendants do not object to those forms of delivery. The Judge
therefore directs both U.S. mail and e-mail distribution of the
Notice and Consent to Join Form.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Morrison deemed as moot the Named
Plaintiff's Dec. 9, 2020. She granted in part and denied in part
the Named Plaintiff's Motion For Conditional Certification as
specified.
The Judge ordered the Defendants to provide the Named Plaintiff,
within 14 days of her Opinion & Order, a roster of all potential
opt-in plaintiffs that includes their full names, their dates of
employment, their locations worked, job titles, their last known
home addresses, and their personal email addresses.
The Notice and Consent to Join Form will be sent to the potential
opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of receipt of the roster using
their home and email addresses.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vykm6zv from Leagle.com.
INTERTEK USA: Faces Kirksey Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE KIRKSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERTEK USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-01165 (S.D. Tex., April 9, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector from
approximately May 2019 until October 2020.
Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff has
been misclassified by the Defendant as an independent contractor
together with other similarly situated inspectors. Despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the
Defendant did not pay them proper overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he
worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendant paid them
straight time for overtime, the suit alleges.
Intertek USA, Inc. provides testing, inspecting, and certifying
products, construction and projects services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
JAMES FRANCO: Faces New Claims Amid Sexual Assault Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rory Tingle, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that Charlyne Yi
has accused James Franco of being a 'sexual predator' and claimed
she was 'bribed' not to quit The Disaster Artist over sexual
assault claims -- as she branded Seth Rogen his 'enabler'.
The actress, who played designer Safowa Bright-Asare in the
Oscar-nominated 2017 movie, posted on Instagram Thursday that she
had tried to leave the film due to sexual assault claims against
Franco, 42, who was director and lead actor.
The 35-year-old said she tried to 'break legal contract' but the
filmmakers instead promised her a bigger role, which Yi saw as an
attempted bribe.
'I cried and told them that that was the exact opposite of what I
wanted, that I didn't feel safe working with a f*****g sexual
predator,' Yi wrote.
'They minimized and said Franco being a predator was so last year
and that he changed… when I literally heard of him abusing new
women that week.'
Yi, previously appeared with Rogen in the 2007 comedy Knocked Up,
claimed that Rogen, 38, whose production company Point Grey
Pictures produced the film, was Franco's responsible for not
stopping Franco's alleged misdemeanors.
She continued: 'Seth Rogen was one of the producers on this film so
he definitely knows about the bribe and why I quit.
'White men saying it's not their responsibility when holding Franco
accountable, or when holding Seth Rogen and enablers accountable.
'Then whose responsibility is it? The women and children who have
PTSD from Franco? Or the future targets of abuse?'
On April 10, Yi posted a second statement on Instagram complaining
that women 'did not feel safe' speaking out, blaming law
enforcement and 'the media'.
Dailymail.com has contacted representatives for both Franco and
Rogen for comment.
Franco has faced several allegations of sexual misconduct,
including in 2017, when a 17-year-old British schoolgirl Lucy Clode
shared messages between her and the then 35-year-old actor inviting
her to his hotel room.
The actor confirmed he had sent the messages and said he was guilty
of 'bad judgement'.
A year later, Franco's former girlfriend Violet Paley claimed he
had forced her to perform oral sex in a car, a claim the actor
denied.
Meanwhile, in February, Franco reached a tentative settlement with
two female students at his now-defunct Studio 4 acting school.
Actresses and ex-students Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal alleged
in a 2019 lawsuit that Franco coerced them into explicit sexual
situations against their will, under the guise of it being part of
an acting course.
The Palo Alto star ran a master class on sex scenes where the
incidents were said to have occurred by both women, prompting them
to bring charges against him, but as of February 21 both dropped
their claims with the opportunity to-refile in the future.
Franco's school ran for three years (2014-2017) and had locations
in both Los Angeles and New York.
During the course of his sex scene class, it has been said that he
pushed and intimidated his students to perform on-camera sex scenes
-- some in an 'orgy type setting.'
The women (both students in 2014) alleged that Franco said he would
cast them in his upcoming films if they were to perform such
explicit scenes, despite the fact that the situations went far
beyond what was deemed acceptable on Hollywood film sets.
Tither-Kaplan and two other women first aired their sexual
misconduct allegations in 2018 in light of the #MeToo movement that
swept Hollywood, just after Franco won a Golden Globe for his film
The Disaster Artist.
She tweeted, 'Hey James Franco, nice #timesup pin at the
#GoldenGlobes, remember a few weeks ago when you told me the full
nudity you had me do in two of your movies for $100/day wasn't
exploitative because I signed a contract to do it? Times up on
that!'
In an interview on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Franco said
the sexual misconduct stories swirling were highly inaccurate,
adding 'If I've done something wrong, I will fix it. I have to.'
In their initial 2019 lawsuit Tither-Kaplan and Gaal said that he,
'sought to create a pipeline of young women who were subjected to
his personal and professional sexual exploitation in the name of
education.'
The ladies also alleged that Franco and his production company -
RabbitBandini Productions - and Studio 4 partners Vince Jolivette
and Jay Davis (who are listed in the lawsuit as defendants) were
guilty of 'humiliating female students and actors.'
Tither-Kaplan cited that on multiple occasions she had witnessed
Franco removing vaginal guards, while Gaal claimed she was denied
entry to a master class level of the sex scene class due to her
concerns.
The suit claimed Gaal was 'told by a male employee to 'grow thicker
skin' and stop being so sensitive.'
Franco's attorneys, called the claims 'false and inflammatory', and
'legally baseless,' adding that the class action suit was brought
about with the intention of 'grabbing as much publicity as possible
for attention-hungry Plaintiffs.'
His team added that Tither-Kaplan had previously expressed
gratitude for the opportunity to work with Franco.
In a social media post she wrote, 'Thanks for censoring my nip
jamesy. Looooveeee these maniacs.' In another she had written,
'James is a gem. I'm lucky to be part of this big ol weird fam.'
James and his camp spoke out about her claims, saying that she and
all students had signed waivers of consent.
'The casting director and others involved with those films have
confirmed that all actresses, including Tither-Kaplan, were aware
of the nudity scenes ahead of time, that they were constantly
checking to make sure the actresses felt comfortable, that they
signed nudity waivers, and that no one - including Tither-Kaplan -
ever complained.'
On February 11 both sides filed a joint status report in Los
Angeles Superior Court telling the judge that a settlement had been
reached between both parties, but the settlement had not been
previously reported.
The sides had reportedly been working towards a settlement for
month's halting the lawsuit while they were in discussion; the
settlement amount has not been publicized at this time.
The agreement outlined that the women had dropped their individual
claims and that their sexual exploitation allegations were being
'dismissed without prejudice,' meaning they could re-file in the
future.
Additionally, the document said that the fraud allegations brought
by them would be 'subjected to limited release,' though no further
detail was given in the report.
He has kept a relatively low profile since the allegations first
arose, and whether or not he will make a statement in lieu of the
settlement news is unknown at this time. [GN]
JDD INVESTMENT: Avila Sues Over Discrimination & Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANA AVILA, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JDD INVESTMENT COMPANY, d/b/a
McDonald's, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01917 (N.D. Ill., April 9,
2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment
practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy, Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Illinois Human Rights
Act.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant around December 2018
as a crew member.
The Plaintiff alleges that her manager Donald treated her less
favorably than employees of non-Mexican ancestry by giving her
heavier workload, being talked down to, being addressed in an
aggressive manner, having objects thrown at her, and being yelled
at for no reason. He added that Donald was allegedly under the
influence of drugs while at work and would generally act
aggressively toward the Plaintiff and other employees of Mexican
ancestry.
Although the Plaintiff and several employees of Mexican ancestry
raised concerns with supervisors Sandy and Carolina on or about
January 7, 2020 about Donald's conduct, the Defendant allegedly
failed to take any remedial or corrective action and things
escalated when Donald scared and/or threatened her for making
complaints against him. Subsequently, the Plaintiff resorted to
tendering her resignation as a result of the ongoing
discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment and the
Defendant's failure to take any remedial action, and due to her
growing concerns for her safety, added the suit.
The Plaintiff also asserts that despite regularly working around
45-50 hours per week, the Defendant denied her of her lawfully
earned overtime wages of one and one-half times her regular rate of
pay for all hours she worked above 40 hours in a workweek.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendant to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.
JDD Investment Company d/b/a McDonald's operates fast food chain
restaurants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Fish, Esq.
John Kunze, Esq.
Thalia Pacheco, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630) 355-7590
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
kunze@fishlawfirm.com
tpacheco@fishlawfirm.com
JELD-WEN INC: 5th Circuit Allows Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Vass, writing for Door and Window Market, reports that after
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a request
by Jeld-Wen Inc. for a rehearing of an anti-trust ruling, U.S.
District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. issued an order certifying a
class of investors to proceed in a suit against the company.
Investors in the company's publicly traded stock allege they bought
at inflated prices. Filed in February 2020, the case alleges that
Jeld-Wen misled investors through statements and omissions, by
failing to disclose intentionally anticompetitive conduct that was
later found to violate federal antitrust law.
The company, along with other defendants, filed motions to dismiss
those allegations, arguing they had no duty to disclose Jeld-Wen's
actions. After denying those motions, Judge Gibney recently
certified the class action suit, approving representation by
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as
class counsel, with Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC serving as
liaison counsel. "The plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements
for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3)," the judge's
opinion states.
The defendants, including Mark A. Beck, L. Brooks Mallard,
Kirk S. Hachigan and Jeld-Wen CEO Gary S. Michel (labeled as
individual defendants) and Jeld-Wen and Onex, opposed the class
certification partly by suggesting that plaintiffs cannot "satisfy
the predominance or typicality requirements set forth in Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23." Those arguments fell short, the recent
court opinion declared.
A hearing was held March 4, 2021, after which the court certified
all persons or entities who purchased Jeld-Wen's publicly traded
stock between January 26, 2017, and October 15, 2018, to
participate. The class excludes: the defendants; immediate family
of any defendant; any person who acted as an officer or director
for the involved companies amid the class period; any firm, trust,
corporation or other entity in which any of the defendants
currently has or previously had controlling interests; Jeld-Wen's
or Onex's employee retirement and benefit plans, including
participants or beneficiaries; and legal representatives,
affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any of the
excluded persons or entities.
In the arguments against the class action suit, officials for
Jeld-Wen previously said they did not make false statements,
because they "accurately described their products' quality and
their pricing strategy and because the competitiveness statements
do not specifically refer to the doorskin market," court documents
say. But Jeld-Wen's statements, combined with its failure to
disclose anticompetitive conduct, "would have misled a reasonable
investor about the nature of" its securities, a court memo states.
Court documents point to a 5% drop in the company's stock price on
October 9, 2018, following an opinion published October 5, 2018, by
Judge Payne, detailing the company's anti-competitive behavior,
ordering divestiture of one of its plants. That decrease was
worsened by an announcement that the company expected to incur
$76.5 million in liability, court documents say, after which the
company also announced its then CEO L. Brooks Mallard would resign,
leaving its stock to tumble by 19%.
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the company's stock at an
inflated price, because defendants "lied about Jeld-Wen's
anticompetitive conduct and the legal risks that conduct posed to
Jeld-Wen." [GN]
JUUL LABS: Faces Jenkins Suit Over E-Cigarette Products' Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Jenkins, on behalf of his son, M.R.J., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA
GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC,
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN,
NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, and RIAZ VALANI, Case No.
3:21-cv-02228 (N.D. Calif., March 30, 2021) arises from the
Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of
e-cigarette products.
According to the complaint, seizing on the decline in cigarette
consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes,
Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce
nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant
supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need
to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again,
without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas
Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management
Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth,
intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine
addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits,
the suit says.
The most recent scientific literature states that JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children, added the
suit.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world’s largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rand P. Nolen, Esq.
FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP
2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 621-7944
Facsimile: (713) 621-9638
E-mail: rand_nolen@fleming-law.com
- and -
R. Keith Morgan, Esq.
LALOR ABY & MORGAN, PLLC
230 Trace Colony Park Drive, Suite 4
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Telephone: (601) 898-2000
Facsimile: (601) 326-9743
E-mail: kmorgan@lamattys.com
KADMON HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired the securities of Kadmon between October 1,
2020 and March 10, 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 New Drug
Application for belumosudil for the treatment of chronic
graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was incomplete and/or
deficient; (2) the additional new data that the Company submitted
in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information
request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (3)
accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the
degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe;
(4) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date to review the Belumosudil
NDA; and (5) 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.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Kadmon
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June
2, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
KADMON HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on April 7 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Kadmon
Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: KDMN) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.
Class Period: October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in KDMN:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/kadmon-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14438&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Kadmon Holdings, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or
deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the Company submitted
in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information
request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (iii)
accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the
degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe;
(iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the PDUFA target
action date to review the Belumosudil NDA; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Shareholders have until June 2, 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 KDMN 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.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-01797, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Kadmon securities
between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Kadmon securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 2, 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.
Kadmon is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and
commercializes small molecules and biologics primarily for the
treatment of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. The Company's lead
product candidates include, among others, belumosudil (KD025), an
orally administered selective inhibitor of the rho-associated
coiled-coil kinase 2 ("ROCK2"), which is in Phase II clinical
development for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease
("cGVHD").
On September 30, 2020, post-market, Kadmon announced the submission
of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment
of cGVHD (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").
Then, on November 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the FDA's acceptance
of the Belumosudil NDA, and that the FDA had assigned the NDA a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date of May
30, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was
incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the
Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to
an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA
submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA
submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led
investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to
extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 10, 2021, Kadmon issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has extended the review period" for the Belumosudil NDA
and that, "[i]n a notice received from the FDA on March 9, 2021,
the Company was informed that the [PDUFA] goal date for its
Priority Review of belumosudil has been extended to August 30,
2021." Kadmon advised investors that "[t]he FDA extended the PDUFA
date to allow time to review additional information submitted by
Kadmon in response to a recent FDA information request," and that
"[t]he submission of the additional information has been determined
by the FDA to constitute a major amendment to the NDA, resulting in
an extension of the PDUFA date by three months."
On this news, Kadmon's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 10.57%,
to close at $4.40 per share on March 11, 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]
KADMON HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Kadmon
Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) 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 October 1,
2020 and March 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 2, 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. Kadmon submitted a New Drug Application
("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment of cGVHD to the FDA that
was incomplete and deficient. When the Company submitted additional
data to the FDA in response to the agency's request, it materially
changed the NDA submission. The FDA was likely to extend the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date to
review the Company's NDA. 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 Kadmon,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
KCI USA: Case Progression Deadlines in Palmer Suit Reinstated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska reinstates the case progression deadlines
in the case, CATHERINE PALMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KCI USA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19CV3084 (D. Neb.).
The matter is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for the
Reinstatement of Remaining Case Progression Deadlines. After
review of the parties' joint stipulation, Magistrate Judge Nelson
finds good cause to reinstate the case progression deadlines.
Accordingly, he granted the Joint Stipulation.
The second amended case progression order is amended as follows:
1) Motion to Certify a Class Action:
a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action will
be filed by May 10, 2021, in the absence of which any
claim in the pleadings that it is a class action will be
deemed abandoned, and the case will proceed, for
purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class
certification had been filed and denied by the Court;
b. The Defendant will file their response to the
Plaintiff's class certification motion by June 9, 2021;
and
c. The Plaintiff will file her reply in support of motion
for class certification by June 23, 2021;
2) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on
Daubert and related grounds is July 2, 2021;
3) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment is Sept. 13, 2021;
4) The parties will comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that
are not inconsistent with this order; and
5) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings
established herein will be directed to Magistrate Judge
Nelson. Such requests will not be considered absent a
showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this
case and the recent development of circumstances,
unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which
require that additional time be allowed.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ykbmx533 from Leagle.com.
KRAFT HEINZ: Huber Sues Over Pizza Bagels' Deceptive Front Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN HUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00278-wmc (W.D. Wis., April 25, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading
advertising, labeling, and marketing of its pizza bagels under the
Bagel Bites brand. The front label representations of the product
include mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce but in reality, the
product does not contain real mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce,
as these foods are understood and expected by consumers. The
Defendant also represented the product as real dairy which misleads
consumers as to the quality of the product. The Plaintiff and Class
members would not have purchased the product or paid as much if the
true facts had been known, says the suit.
Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a food and beverage company
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LA CARRETA: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Norovirus Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Balchunas, writing for ABCNews4, reports that more than
two years after hundreds got sick, a Summerville restaurant may
soon pay the price. A settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit against La Carreta Mexican Restaurant in Summerville.
A DHEC investigation found nearly 300 customers got sick after
eating at the restaurant in late November and early December of
2018. Those who got sick now have a chance to get compensated for
it.
Dozens have now joined the class action suit, including Amber
Widener, who ABC News 4 interviewed in December 2018, after she got
sick from dining at the Summerville restaurant. It was a weekend
Widener will never forget.
"Every hour on the hour I threw up like clockwork and it was just
horrendous," Widener said. "By the end, I didn't have the energy
hardly to get off the bathroom floor. It was terrible."
Turns out, she wasn't alone. Hundreds of complaints were reported
to DHEC. The agency said 290 people reported having symptoms
related to a norovirus, a gastrointestinal illness.
"I found out my sister-in-law got sick, a friend of mine, her
husband and four children got sick, my other sister-in-law,
neighbors and co-workers who don't even live in Summerville had
come in during that brief time from like Wednesday to Monday or
Tuesday and had eaten at La Carreta, and within 48 hours they were
all sick," she said.
Widener said she did seek medical attention while sick, adding a
doctor prescribed her anti-nausea medication. She said it's not
about the money, she joined the lawsuit out of principle. She said
La Carreta stayed open despite hearing multiple complaints for
days.
"I found out from other people who had gotten sick that they had
contacted La Carreta before I ate there," said Widener. "They had
been told over and over and over and over again and didn't do
anything about it. So, that's why we've never been back, and we
will never go back and that was very sad because we love that
place. We ate there for, you know, 16, 17 years on an almost weekly
basis."
It's unclear how many people have joined the class action lawsuit
up to this point. There's still time for those who think they got
sick to join it. The deadline to file a claim is June 1, 2021.
According to the settlement filing, claimants who can provide
documented evidence of medical treatment are eligible to receive
$5,000 or more. Those who did not seek medical attention are still
eligible to receive compensation, but the amount varies depending
on how many claimants end up joining the case.
In a 2019 filing, La Carreta denied the illnesses came from food
consumed at its restaurant. ABC News 4 reached out to the
restaurant's attorney, but did not immediately receive a response.
For more information on the class action lawsuit, visit the website
summervillefoodpoisoning.com [GN]
LASIK MD: Quebec Court Tosses Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Mae Jones, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that a
proposed class-action lawsuit brought against Lasik MD by a
Canadian in 2019 has been rejected by a Quebec court, which ruled
that the proposed class action was prescribed and was not
appropriate for the circumstances of the case.
Christopher Ouellet, the plaintiff in question, launched the legal
action years after he experienced a rare outcome following Lasik
eye surgery in 2015: unrelenting, burning pain in his eyes.
"It completely ruined my life," Ouellet told CTV News in 2019. "It
destroyed everything. It made me lose my job. It made me lose the
things I like to do in life."
He was diagnosed in 2016 with corneal neuralgia, a rare condition
in which damaged nerves in the cornea cause severe pain. It is
frequently misdiagnosed or dismissed as merely dry eye, and can
have devastating life consequences.
Although negative outcomes from Lasik eye surgery are extremely
rare, occurring in less than one per cent of patients according to
Lasik MD, they have been reported before.
Lasik MD added the risk of corneal neuralgia to some consent forms
after a CTV News/W5 investigation in 2018 that looked into patients
who had experienced chronic pain after eye surgeries.
In legal filings, Ouellet alleged that Lasik MD did not properly
inform him of the risks of the surgery beforehand, and that his
surgeon did not discuss the consent form with him. He was seeking
damages for those who suffered chronic pain as a result of Lasik
surgery done between 2009 and 2018.
A class-action lawsuit is a particular type of lawsuit where a
group of people, who are represented by one member or some members
of that group, sue another party with the understanding that the
class of people have been impacted in a similar way.
The Superior Court of Quebec wrote in their decision last November
that their dismissal came down to two major reasons: the lawsuit
was not filed within the three year time period that applies and
the court believed the situation was not appropriate for a
class-action lawsuit.
Their first point was that Ouellet had experienced post-surgery
pain since 2015 and the three year period should start then. The
class action lawyer argued that since Ouellet's diagnosis came in
2016, that should serve as the start date for the three year time
limit on filing, but the court disagreed.
"The take away, from Mr. Ouellet's own application, is that the
underlying issue is post-surgical chronic pain. Corneal neuralgia
is but one name for it," the judgment reads.
In terms of the case being appropriate for a class-action lawsuit,
the decision found there was no common question and stated that one
of the reasons it would be difficult to apply this case more
broadly was because it hinges on whether Ouellet was not properly
informed of the risks.
To apply that in a class-action lawsuit, the court said would
require it to look into the discussions between every patient and
their Lasik surgeons across the country, and "up to 66
ophthalmologists performed laser surgery on behalf of Lasik" in the
specified time period.
When it comes to written consent forms and information alone, the
decision stated that the defence had said there were up to 22
different consent forms given to patients depending on their
medical histories.
"Therefore, it is clear that the adequacy of the information will
be different for every patient, regardless of the facts in the
written materials or information," the decision stated.
They also said that the consent form Ouellet was given did raise
the possibility of chronic pain.
The court added that if Ouellet's specific surgeon had failed to
verbally disclose the risk of post-surgery chronic pain to Ouellet,
as he alleges, "a negative answer to the question does not advance
the debate in a way that renders a class action an appropriate
recourse."
Although others joined Ouellet's legal proceeding after it was
announced, with many coming forward to share their experiences with
debilitating eye pain after Ouellet and other Canadians spoke up,
the court stated in its decision that since "the consent forms
contain a similar clause giving exclusive competence to the courts
of the province where the surgery has been performed," the actual
number of people covered in the lawsuit in Quebec is a smaller
cohort than initially believed.
While around 1,197 people responded to a website created by Ouellet
and his lawyer, out of those, only around 10 people suffering from
corneal neuralgia are permanent residents of Quebec and it's
unknown whether they were informed of the risks of the surgery
beforehand.
"The issue of the number of potential class members whose claim is
within applicable time limits is also an element that might affect
whether there is a viable group. Save for exceptional situations, a
group cannot be open-ended," the court stated.
The decision stated that Ouellet's case may have grounds for a
personal lawsuit, had he not commenced his lawsuit too late.
In a statement to CTV News regarding the court's decision, Lasik MD
reiterated that complications from Lasik are rare, and that "in the
vast majority of cases, these post-surgical complications are
treatable."
"Our stringent approach and established processes ensure that each
patient is fully educated on the potential risks, benefits and
possible side effects prior to any procedure, including the very
rare risk of chronic pain, a condition not exclusive to eye
surgery. While the risks associated with LASIK are extremely low,
it is nonetheless very unfortunate when a rare complication
occurs," Dr. Mark Cohen, co-founder and national medical director
of Lasik MD, said in the statement. [GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on April 6 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Leidos
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.
Class Period: May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in LDOS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/leidos-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14405&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Leidos Holdings, Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the purported benefits of the Company's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos' products suffered from
numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection
systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) 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.
Shareholders have until May 3, 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 LDOS 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.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
LENOVO US: Loses Bid to Split Class, Merits Discovery in Singh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NEHA SINGH, et al. v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.,
Civil Action No. CCB-20-1082 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine C. Blake of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied
Lenovo's motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery.
The putative class action raises claims related to a line of "Yoga"
computer devices manufactured and sold by Lenovo. The Plaintiffs
allege Lenovo knowingly sold the Yoga devices with defective hinges
in violation of various states' consumer fraud statutes and in
breach of express and implied warranties.
Before the Court is Lenovo's motion to bifurcate class and merits
discovery.
Judge Blake notes that whether to order bifurcation, during
discovery or at trial, is an issue squarely within the broad
discretion of the district court. She says, generally,
"bifurcation of discovery is the exception, rather than the rule,
and it is clear that in most instances, regular -- that is,
unbifurcated -- discovery is more efficient." At the same time, in
the class action context, where a district court must determine
whether an action should be certified as a class action at an
"early practicable time," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A), the Manual
for Complex Litigation states that "discovery relevant only to the
merits delays the certification decision and may ultimately be
unnecessary" if, for example, individual claims are unlikely to
proceed if a class is not certified. Thus, where merits
bifurcation would cause significant duplication and expense,
discovery should proceed concurrently.
The parties agree that in ruling on the motion, the Court is to
consider (1) the overlap between individual and class discovery,
(2) whether bifurcation will promote Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23's requirement that certification be decided "at an
early practicable time," (3) judicial economy, and (4) any
prejudice reasonably likely to flow from the grant or denial of a
stay of class discovery.
Judge Blake finds that the rigorous analysis at the class
certification stage would require that the Court analyze the causes
of action alleged by the Plaintiffs to determine whether they are
susceptible to classwide proof. While expert testimony may be able
to establish a defect, it is likely the Plaintiffs will need access
to some of Lenovo's records in order to determine whether Lenovo
knew of the defect and sold the product anyway. It is difficult to
see a way to cleanly and efficiently disentangle these inquiries
from the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims.
The Judge also finds that if she were to bifurcate discovery, there
is no indication that the timeline for certifying a class would
advance. She says it is not a case where the parties have vastly
different proposals as to the timeline for certification. Lenovo
originally had the less optimistic view of how long it would take
to complete discovery in advance of class certification, and the
plaintiffs accommodated Lenovo's desire to brief class
certification in March 2022. The Judge does not read the
Plaintiffs' response to suggest that all merits discovery must
conclude prior to briefing class certification; rather, they
represent that their discovery needs are not the bottleneck.
The parties have different ideas about what constitutes merits
discovery and what constitutes class discovery. This confirms, as
some courts have held, that the line between the two is murky and
that the court would be required to expend resources drawing those
lines for the parties as disputes arise. And, the arbitrary
insistence on distinguishing between class and merits discovery may
"thwart the informed judicial assessment that current class
certification practice emphasizes.
Lastly, Judge Blake finds that any prejudice to Lenovo that may
result from not bifurcating discovery may be minimized or negated
by avoiding disputes over what constitutes class discovery and --
should a class be certified -- by the continuing relevance of
merits discovery beyond the class certification stage.
Given the enmeshed nature of class and merits discovery, the
unlikelihood that the date of a class certification decision will
advance, the expected benefits to judicial economy, and the minimal
prejudice it is hoped will result, Judge Blake declines to draw
bright lines by ordering bifurcation. But neither is she ordering
that all merits discovery be completed prior to the class
certification determination; indeed, it may be efficient to defer
some merits discovery where it does not plausibly overlap with any
of the Rule 23 certification requirements. The counsel are
expected, as always, to collaborate and to look to proportionality
as their guiding principle.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Blake denied the Defendant's
motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ce5mv4 from Leagle.com.
LIMANI 51: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gjorevski Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BORCHE GJOREVSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIMANI 51, LLC, d/b/a LIMANI and FRANCO
SUKAJ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y., April 23,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid regular
and overtime wages due to off-the-clock work, unpaid minimum wage
due to invalid tip credit, and misappropriated tips in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a bartender at
the Limani restaurant located at 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York,
New York from January 2, 2016 through the present date.
Limani 51, LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name Limani, with a principal place of business located at 630
Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (718) 971-0326
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio against Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) ("Lordstown")
f/k/a DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: DPHC) ("DiamondPeak") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Lordstown securities
between August 3, 2020 and March 24, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/lordstown-motors-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=lordstown
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500
Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers. Lordstown's purported flagship vehicle
is the "Endurance," an electric full-size pickup truck. DiamondPeak
was structured as a special purpose acquisition company.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Lordstown's purported pre-orders were
non-binding; (2) many of the would-be customers who made these
purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or
would not have credible demand for the Endurance; (3) Lordstown is
not and has not been "on track" to commence production of the
Endurance in September 2021; (4) the first test run of the
Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10
minutes; and (5) as a result, Lordstown's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Lordstown investors may, no later than May 17, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on April 6
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown") (NASDAQ:RIDE; RIDEW) between
August 3, 2020 and March 24, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including investors who purchased or otherwise acquired warrants to
purchase the stock of Lordstown or its predecessor DiamondPeak
Holdings Corp. ("DiamondPeak," collectively, "Lordstown" or the
"Company"), as well as holders of DiamondPeak stock entitled to
participate in the August 22, 2020 shareholder vote on the merger
with Lordstown.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Lordstown investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Lordstown Securities Class Litigation
Lordstown, headquartered in Lordstown, Ohio, is an automotive
company founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing
light duty electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers.
Its flagship product, the Endurance, is an electric pickup truck.
The actions claim that, during the Class Period, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the number of Endurance pre-orders was fabricated, and thus
inflated, and did not accurately reflect demand; (2) purported
customers lacked the means to fulfill their pre-orders; (3) and the
Company faced undisclosed production hurdles that would continue to
delay production and delivery of the Endurance; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Lordstown's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 12, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
reported 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 the report, while Lordstown consistently pointed to
its book of 100,000 pre-orders as proof of strong demand for its
Endurance pickup truck, Hindenburg's "conversations with former
employees, business partners and an extensive document review show
that the company's orders are largely fictitious and used as a prop
to raise capital and confer legitimacy." On this news, the price of
Lordstown common stock fell approximately 16.5%, from its closing
price of $17.71 on March 11, 2021, to close at $14.78 on March 12,
2021.
On March 17, 2021, following the close of the market, Lordstown's
CEO, defendant Stephen Burns, revealed that the Company was under
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, a
disclosure absent from its fourth quarter and 2020 earnings
reports. On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 14%, from its closing price of $15.09 on March 17,
2021, to close at $13.01 on March 18, 2021. The next day Burns
announced on national television that "We never said we had orders.
We don't have a product yet so by definition you can't have
orders."
On March 24, 2021, Hindenburg Research published additional
pictures of the Endurance truck after it broke down and had to be
loaded onto a tow truck during the filming of a commercial that was
aired just days before Lordstown became a publicly traded company.
On this news Lordstown's stock price fell another $1.21 per share,
or 9.61%, from its close of $12.59 on March 23, 2021, to close at
$11.38 on March 24, 2021.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contact for Media Inquiries Only
Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]
MARY SCHIMDT CAMPBELL: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Schmidt
Campbell, et al. The case is styled as Meghan Downing, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mary Schmidt
Campbell, Megan B. Chernin, James Cuno, Bruce W. Dunlevie, Drew G.
Faust, Maria Hummer-Tuttle, Pamela J. Joyner, David L. Lee, Robert
W. Lovelace, Thelma Melndez De Santa Ana, Kavita Singh, Ronald P.
Spogli, John Studzinski, Anne M. Sweeney, as trustee on behalf of
The J. Paul Getty Trust; Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-03127-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mary Schmidt Campbell --
https://www.spelman.edu/about-us/office-of-the-president/biography
-- is an American academic administrator, professor, author,
scholar of art and culture, and is the President of Spelman
College.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
MATADOR PRODUCTION: Bragg Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, COREY BRAGG, Individually and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated v. MATADOR PRODUCTION COMPANY, and MATADOR
PRODUCTION COMPANY v. PLASTER & WALD CONSULTING CORP., Case No.
2:20-cv-00054-KWR-KRS (D.N.M.), Judge Kea W. Riggs of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims without prejudice.
The order is pursuant to the parties' Rule 41 Stipulation of
Dismissal without Prejudice. The parties will bear their own fees
and costs.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/pk8kdcat from Leagle.com.
MDL 2670: EPPs Can't File Overlength Brief in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: AS MOOT End Payer Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-md-2670-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
denied as moot the joint motion seeking leave for End Payer
Plaintiffs to file an overlength brief in support of their motion
for preliminary approval of partial class action settlement.
The EPPs have already filed a brief in compliance with the page
limitations of Civil Local Rule 7.1.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/tj572npy from Leagle.com.
MDL 30051: Belviq-Related Suit Moved to US Judicial Panel
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as IN RE: Belviq (Lorcaserin HCI) Products
Liability Litigation filed by Plaintiffs Stephanie Fuller, Robert
Fuller, Deborah Steinman, Reuben Steinman, Mildred Smith, Pamela
Puskas, Michael Puskas, Jennifer Reynolds-Sitzer, Kenneth Sitzer,
Deborah Crawford, Bradley Trey Crawford, Maryann Kaylor and Willard
Kaylor, Jr. was transferred from Louisiana Eastern District
Court(2:20-cv-01675), New York Eastern District
Court(1:20-cv-02608), Alabama Northern District
Court(5:20-cv-01278), Oklahoma Western District
Court(5:20-cv-00868), Louisiana Western District
Court(5:21-cv-00058), New York Northern District
Court(1:21-cv-00145), New Jersey District Court(2:21-cv-02439),
Florida Middle District
Court(8:21-cv-00831),(6:21-cv-00615),(6:21-cv-00406),(5:21-cv-00210),
Missouri Western District Court(4:20-cv-00762), New York Southern
District(7:20-cv-02600), to the U.S. District Court for the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 12,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. MDL No.
30051:21-cv-00505 to the proceeding.[BN]
MELTON TRUCK: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Monica Williams, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00838, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma on April 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00184-TCK-CDL to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Melton Truck Lines -- https://meltontruck.com/ -- is one of the
nation's leading flatbed trucking companies with a large and
growing fleet of modern, safe, and well-maintained equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF LLP
71 South Wacker Drive 16th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 212-4956
Fax: (312) 767-9192
MERCEDES-BENZ: Hagens Berman Files Defeat Device Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit
against Mercedes stating the automaker knowingly programmed its
Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles to emit illegal, dangerous levels of
nitrogen oxide (NOx) in virtually all real world driving conditions
and contain a "defeat device" used to cheat testing.
Testing at highway speeds, at low temperatures, and at variable
speeds, indicate a systemic failure to meet emissions standards.
Low temperature testing at highway speeds for example, produced
emissions that were 8.1 to 19.7 times the highway emissions
standard. The lawsuit adds that testing at low temperatures at
variable speeds produced emissions as high as 30.8 times the
standard.
"In virtually every road test the emissions were hardly as Mercedes
promised as ‘the world's cleanest and most advanced diesel . . .'
Mercedes vehicles do not meet emission standards in virtually all
real world driving conditions," the complaint states.
The lawsuit alleges that the following Mercedes models powered by
BlueTEC diesel-fueled engines are affected by the unlawful, unfair,
deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls utilized by
Mercedes.
Affected vehicles include:
Mercedes ML 320
Mercedes ML 350
Mercedes GL 320
Mercedes E250
Mercedes E320
Mercedes S350
Mercedes R320
Mercedes E Class
Mercedes GL Class
Mercedes ML Class
Mercedes R Class
Mercedes S Class
Mercedes GLK Class
Mercedes GLE Class
Mercedes Sprinter
The original suit filed Feb. 18, 2016 in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey accuses Mercedes of deceiving
consumers with false representations of its BlueTEC vehicles, which
it marketed as "the world's cleanest and most advanced diesel" with
"ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy and responsive performance"
that emits "up to 30% lower greenhouse-gas emissions than
gasoline."
Attorneys representing vehicle owners sought relief for those who
purchased the affected vehicles, including injunctive relief in the
form of a recall or free replacement program and restitution
including either recovery of the purchase price or overpayment or
diminution in value due to Mercedes' misleading statements and
omissions regarding the emission levels of its Clean Diesel BlueTEC
vehicles. A $700 million settlement in the matter is pending the
notice phase for eventual distribution to class members.
How does the Mercedes BlueTEC emissions system work?
– Initial reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) performed by
the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system.
– A diesel oxidation catalyst reduces the amounts of carbon
monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) released from the exhaust and
helps keep the particulate trap clean.
– A particulate filter traps and stores soot particles. The
diesel oxidation catalyst upstream helps to remove the particles
from the particulate trap, though the engine will occasionally
remove excessive particulate buildup by raising the exhaust
temperature.
– In some older model vehicles, a NOx storage catalyst will be
used to perform the final removal of NOx from the exhaust before it
exits the tailpipe..
– The vast majority of BlueTEC-equipped Mercedes in the US make
use of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalytic converter
(instead of the NOx storage catalyst) to convert the remaining
nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and water; so-called diesel exhaust
fluid (or "DEF," a solution of urea and water) is injected into the
exhaust gas stream to enable the conversion. In order to prevent
vehicles from breaking emissions regulations, the engine may go
into a limp-home-mode if the DEF tank is depleted; drivers are
instructed to keep the tank refilled as necessary. Some commercial
vehicles are equipped with a request or inhibit switch which allows
the DEF injection to be "postponed" as it can reduce power output
and increase temperatures temporarily; if the vehicle is climbing a
grade, for example, it may be necessary to delay the cycle.
According to the complaint, diesel engines pose a particularly
difficult challenge to the environment because they have trade-off
between power, fuel efficiency and emissions: the greater the power
and fuel efficiency, the dirtier and more harmful the emissions.
"Car manufacturers have struggled to produce diesel engines that
have high power and desirable fuel efficiency but also cleaner
emissions," reads the complaint. "Mercedes' response to the
challenge has been the BlueTEC diesel engine."
Compared to gasoline engines, diesel engines generally produce
greater torque, low-end power, better drivability and much higher
fuel efficiency. But these benefits come at the cost of much
dirtier and more harmful emissions, including NOx, which include a
variety of nitrogen and oxygen chemical compounds that only form at
high temperatures. [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bagby Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANIECE BAGBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND
FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01885
(E.D. Pa., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant Midland Credit Management
(MCM) sent a misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff and
Class members on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding. The letter
failed to adequately explain the third payment option provided by
the Defendants which could result in two different possible
interpretations. By failing to explain whether the third payment
option is a settlement option or a full pay option, the letter is
false, deceptive and misleading, the suit alleges.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection firm,
headquartered in San Diego, California.
Midland Funding LLC is a debt collection firm, headquartered in San
Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 326-9179
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: White Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as William White,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-10914-LJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MLC NOMINEES: NAB MySuper Class Action Moved to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Williamson, writing for Financial Standard, reports that
Maurice Blackburn's class action against MLC Nominees and NULIS
Nominees has moved to the Federal Court, following a decision late
last year.
The class action brought by Maurice Blackburn against MLC Nominees
and NULIS in January 2020 on behalf of 330,000 MasterKey members
accuses the super trustees of breaching their duties by delaying
the transition of accounts to cheaper MySuper products.
On 18 December 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled the case
invalid. A spokesperson for Maurice Blackburn confirmed the case
has now been filed in the Federal Court.
At the time, the judge determined that claims that members had
suffered a loss under Section 55(3) of the SIS Act were not valid
as, among other things, "loss and damage does not extend to
prospective loss".
The lead plaintiff claims a loss was suffered in the form of higher
fees and lower investment returns, and a consequential reduction in
the amount he and members of the class action have received or can
expect to receive from interest in the funds.
"What s 55(3) of the SIS Act provides is that a person who suffers
loss or damage as a result of conduct of another person, in
contravention of Sections 55(1), may recover the amount of the loss
or damage by action against that other person, or against any
person involved in the contravention," documents read.
"The plaintiff has not suffered loss or damage, notwithstanding
that his expectation -- that he may suffer loss or damage in the
future -- could be legitimate."
A spokesperson for NAB told Financial Standard: "As the matter is
before the courts, we are unable to provide further comment." [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on April 6 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of MultiPlan
Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III")
(NYSE: MPLN) securities during the period of July 12, 2020 through
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and all holders
of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill
III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which merger
was consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for Eastern District of
New York, is captioned Paradis v. MultiPlan Corporation, et al.,
No. 21-cv-01853. Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b),
14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Churchill III securities during the Class
Period or that was entitled to vote on the Merger to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
this class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice to litigate this class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of this class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit,
you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 6, 2021.
If you would like to discuss this class action lawsuit or obtain
more information about your rights or interests, you are encouraged
to contact Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by e-mailing Jack G.
Fruchter (JFruchter@aftlaw.com) or Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
(SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com). You may also call and leave a message
at (212) 279-5050.
This class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions
of dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created
by one of MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which
threatened up to 35% of MultiPlan's sales and 80% of its levered
cash flows by 2022; (b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters
leading up to the Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer
behaviors as represented, but rather due to a fundamental
deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and increased
competition, as payors developed competing services and sought
alternatives to eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (c)
MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services
and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead
up to the Merger by insurers, who had expressed dissatisfaction
with the price and quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced
billing practices, causing MultiPlan to cut its take rate by up to
half in some cases; (d) as a result, MultiPlan was set to continue
to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased
competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the
Merger; (e) consequently, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued
revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through
pricey acquisitions, including through the purchase of the
healthcare technology company HST for $140 million at a premium
price from a former MultiPlan executive only one month after the
Merger; and (f) as such, Churchill III investors had grossly
overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and
MultiPlan's business was worth far less than represented to
investors.
On November 11, 2020, only a month after the Merger, Muddy Waters
published a report titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia
Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab." Among other things, Muddy Waters'
report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its
largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost
MultiPlan up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free
cash flow within two years. On this news, the price of Churchill
III Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, or
nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have
redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the
Merger.
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com) is a law firm
based in New York and maintaining an office in California. The
firm's attorneys have extensive experience litigating on behalf of
shareholders and consumers in class action litigations involving
corporate misconduct. The firm has also been ranked among the
leading law firms in terms of results obtained and recoveries
achieved for shareholders.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
Jack G. Fruchter
Sean M. Handron-O'Brien
450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
JFruchter@aftlaw.com
SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com [GN]
NAVISTAR INC: King & Spalding Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on March
11, 2021, the Seventh Circuit held that when a district court
delineates clear instructions for how class members can opt out of
a class action settlement, a class member's continued prosecution
of claims in parallel litigation does not provide proper notice of
their intent to be excluded from the binding settlement. The
Navistar court declined to adopt the "reasonable indication"
standard for opting out of a class action settlement -— a test
previously endorsed by the Second and Tenth Circuits -- on the
grounds that such a standard would be impractical and impossible
for district courts to administer. However, when a district court
has not issued detailed instructions concerning the opt-out
process, a judge is free to accept any "reasonable indication" of
class members' desire to opt out.
A class of truck owners sued Navistar for selling trucks with
allegedly defective engines. The court granted preliminary approval
of a class settlement in June 2019. Prior to approving the
settlement, the district court outlined a detailed opt-out
procedure for class members who wish to exclude themselves from the
settlement.
Two members of the class (collectively "Drasc"), who had brought a
separate suit in Ohio state court, did not follow the opt out
procedures outlined by the district court. After the district court
entered a final judgment implementing the settlement and ending the
litigation, Drasc moved to intervene and argued it should not be
bound by the settlement because (1) it never received class notice
and (2) the court should deem Drasc's ongoing litigation in Ohio a
"reasonable indication" of its desire to opt out.
With respect to Drasc's first argument, the Seventh Circuit agreed
with the district court that Drasc had actual knowledge of the need
to opt out and could not show excusable neglect justifying
extension of the opt-out deadline:
First, two first-class letters containing class notice had been
sent to Drasc. While Drasc contended that the letters were not in
its files and its president could not recall receiving them, the
court held that "mailing is evidence of receipt" and "a disclaimer
of memory does not refute receipt."
Second, Drasc's lawyers in the Ohio suit had actual notice of the
settlement and even sent a letter to Navistar's counsel the day
after the preliminary hearing. Further, Drasc's lawyers "must have
known about the need to opt out" because "no modern lawyer is
unaware of the procedures for managing class actions."
In the alternative, Drasc argued that its continued suit against
Navistar in Ohio state court should suffice as "reasonable
indication" to the district court that Drasc intended to opt out.
The "reasonable indication" standard arises from the lack of
specificity in the text of Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(v), which provides that
"the court will exclude from the class any member who requests
exclusion." Both the Second and Tenth Circuits have adopted
reasoning from Wright & Miller that the Rule provides district
courts with "considerable flexibility in determining what
constitutes an effective expression of a class member's desire to
exclude himself and any written evidence of it should suffice." See
In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 493 F.2d 1288, 1291
(10th Cir. 1974); Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 654 (2d Cir.
1982). The Seventh Circuit noted, however, that neither the Tenth
nor Second Circuits considered what should happen when the district
court issues a more precise directive to class members and insists
that it be followed.
It was in this distinction that the Navistar court rested its
opinion. When a district court has not provided instructions to
class members about how to opt out, "the judge is free to accept as
adequate any ‘reasonable indication' of such desire.'" When,
however, a district judge has specified "in excruciating detail"
how opting out is to be accomplished, as the district court in
Navistar had done, a judge is not required to accept a different
means of opt out.
The court enumerated several reasons why adopting the "reasonable
indication" standard would be impractical and inefficient:
First, the standard would improperly allow class members to engage
in wait-and-see behavior, permitting a class member to collect more
than a suit's "actuarial value" based on hindsight determinations
concerning which suit provided a larger recovery. Instead of
permitting such "one-way interventions," courts should require
class members to "make an irrevocable choice: take their share of
whatever the class receives, or take the outcome of a separate
suit."
Second, the "reasonable indication" standard would render class
actions "difficult if not impossible to administer," given that
classes may have thousands or even millions of members.
Third, rejecting the "reasonable indication" standard in favor of a
more predictable and mechanical opt-out procedure will help inform
a district court's decision concerning whether to approve a
settlement "as a substantive matter," since the court will have
greater clarity concerning the number of opt-outs (and whether the
settlement value should be reduced accordingly).
The decision will help class action defendants in the Seventh
Circuit preserve the binding character of class settlements and
protect against collateral attacks from class members in parallel
and follow-on suits. It also underscores that class litigants
should draft proposed preliminary approval orders that provide
clear and explicit rules concerning opt-out procedures and timing,
with no exceptions. Otherwise, district courts will have greater
leeway to permit belated opt-outs under a "reasonable indication"
standard.
The case is In the Matter of Navistar Maxxforce Engines Mktg, Sales
Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., and the opinion is available here.
[GN]
NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and the NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS
CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE
PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, JOHN BULGARO, BRIAN K. HAMMOND, PAUL
A. MARKWITZ, GEORGE F. HARRIGAN, MARK D. MAY, MICHAEL S. SCALZO,
SR., ROBERT SCHAEFFER, MARK GLADFELTER, SAMUEL D. PILGER, DANIEL W.
SCHMIDT, TOM J. VENTURA, MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., and HORIZON
ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08793, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on
April 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00455-TJM-DJS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by
failing to: (1) act solely in the interest of the participants and
beneficiaries of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension
and Retirement Fund (Plan), (2) act with the care, skill, prudence
and diligence under circumstances, (3) diversify the investments of
the Plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, and (4) act in
accordance with the documents and instruments governing the Plan.
As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the
Plaintiff and other participants and beneficiaries of the Plan
suffered losses.
New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund is
a company that operates as a pension plan based in New York.
Meketa Investment Group, Inc. is an investment consulting and
advisory firm based in Massachusetts.
Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is a consulting firm, headquartered
in Silver Spring, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leslie A. Blau, Esq.
BLAU & MALMFELDT
566 West Adams Street, Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 443-1600
Facsimile: (312) 443-1665
E-mail: blaulaw@gmail.com
- and –
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com
- and –
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Ips Emily L. Skaug, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
NEW YORK, NY: Open Streets Opponents Mull Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
StreetsBlog reports that the mayor's signature effort to bring
car-free outdoor space to COVID-stricken neighborhoods last year is
increasingly looking like it will collapse unless city officials do
something to assert authority over a program that has left
volunteers beaten, harassed, uncompensated and just plain
exhausted. Consider what's happened in just the last few days:
An open streets volunteer was attacked by a car owner in North
Brooklyn.
Open streets opponents are discussing in private chat rooms whether
they can apply to run an open street -- and then simply not put out
the barricades that deter drivers.
Equipment paid for by volunteers in North Brooklyn was vandalized
and destroyed, and the open streets program in the Greenpoint part
of the neighborhood was suspended.
Two Department of Transportation officials were so viciously
berated by open streets opponents in Greenpoint that they withdrew
from a meeting.
Some open streets opponents have joined forces and are discussing a
class-action lawsuit that will argue that the city is violating
drivers' rights by removing thru-traffic from a tiny number of
streets.
Several groups of open streets opponents are circulating petitions
with inaccurate information to suggest that open streets are only
supported by a fringe of the neighborhood (one petition, in North
Brooklyn, even claims that 1,000 parking spaces are going to be
eliminated because of the open streets program, and that roadways
are less safe when drivers don't have access to them, neither of
which is accurate).
Taken all together, it combines to a "program" that is not a
program at all, but a collection of hastily assembled volunteer
groups struggling mightily to prop up an open space initiative that
itself was hastily assembled at the start of the pandemic last
year.
The pro-open streets petitions (here's one from TransAlt and here's
an independent one) generally advocate for the program in the same
way that the de Blasio administration has championed it: as an
indispensable open space program that has made our city better.
But there's a fatal flaw: the mayor says that open, car-free space
adds to New Yorkers' quality of life whether there is a pandemic or
not, but he has not revealed the details of what his "permanent"
open streets program will look like -- and opponents are filling
the chasm of leadership by questioning why streets need to be set
aside for social distancing if the need to socially distance itself
fades.
A big problem is confusion. People on both sides of this
debate-that-shouldn't-even-be-a-debate are complaining that they
simply don't know who's in charge, so they don't know who's
accountable.
A meeting of the Queens Community Board 3 Traffic and
Transportation Committee featured some of the usual irrational
fears of the pro-car crowd, but mostly, members of the committee
kept asking DOT for its plans.
For instance, some residents complained that there is more trash on
34th Avenue as a result of the many residents now using it for
recreation, safe interactions with their neighbors or to enjoy the
quiet and cleaner air of a rare car-free space. And, yes, there is
trash, which tends to happen wherever humans gather.
Others asked bizarre questions about families hosting birthday
parties on the park-like street. Others complained about vendors,
who simply go where the people are and tend to offer what people
want. Others asked about the open streets volunteer group that the
DOT selected to run the program. Others asked why 34th Avenue was
chosen at all.
Open-streets skeptics have raised similar questions in North
Brooklyn.
Of course, the questions themselves are not unreasonable -- but the
questions only point to the logical answer: The city needs to take
control of this unique, life-changing, much-loved program and use
city resources. The buck needs to stop with someone at City Hall.
And there are many options that will create great open space -- and
clarity. In other words, if 34th Avenue between Junction Boulevard
and 69th Street was simply converted into a park, it would be run
as a park, with the Parks Department overseeing sanitation,
permitting rules, vending rules, and complaints from the public. If
34th Avenue was converted into a DOT plaza, it would be run as a
DOT plaza, with existing DOT plaza rules, permitting rules, vending
rules. If the future of 34th Avenue calls for a new design or
capital expense, it would be redesigned as a Department of Design
and Construction project, which would be run as a Department of
Design and Construction project, with existing Department of Design
and Construction rules, etc.
You get the idea.
The problem is, the de Blasio administration has chosen confusion,
which stems from the emergency creation of the open streets program
in the first place. When peppered with questions about the program
at the CB3 meeting, DOT official Jason Banrey made it very clear
that the de Blasio administration's idea of "permanent" still
relies on citizen volunteers.
"The city needs the help of volunteers," Banrey said. "They breathe
life into the program and make it happen."
They're also cannon fodder. On April 8, North Brooklyn volunteer
Rick Karr was assaulted by an opponent of the open street program
on Driggs Avenue, a roadway often used as a shortcut through the
neighborhood for drivers exiting the Kosciuszko Bridge. Karr
declined to provide details because it's now a legal matter, but
some details could be gleaned from witnesses and the police
report.
At around 5 p.m. on April 8 Karr noticed that the barricades at
Driggs and Morgan avenues had been moved to the sidewalk, so he
started to redeploy them to re-establish the open street. A
neighbor started screaming at him, "Oh, no you don't! Oh, no you
don't! We just took those down, you're not putting them back up."
The neighbor approached and grabbed one of the barricades that Karr
was re-installing -- and did so in a way that sent the volunteer to
the ground, where he received scrapes from the barricade. Karr
withdrew to a nearby store to escape the screaming neighbor, while
a witness called the 94th Precinct. By the time the squad car
arrived, the belligerent neighbor had fled. Cops took a report, but
no arrest has been made (police declined to comment for this
story).
The incident with Karr puts a klieg light on the most glaring
problem with de Blasio's approach to the open streets program that
he says will continue forever despite failing to remedy the
underlying tension that has persisted during his seven-plus-year
tenure: the car-owning minority sees every streetscape improvement
as a "war on cars," while the vast majority of New Yorkers who
don't own a car rightly feel that their neighbors' use of a car
endangers them, pollutes the air, congests the roadways and
generally makes life intolerable in vast stretches of New York
City.
"I have lived in Greenpoint for 21 years, but the perpetrator of
the assault on me kept saying that I and people like me aren't
welcome here and that we're not real Greenpointers," Karr said.
"For the most part, we don't own cars. We don't drive to work every
day. The old timers tend to drive to and from work every day. That
has metastasized into a feeling on their part that their way of
life is under attack. And once that happens, it's very difficult to
make a case [for open streets] to anyone who feels that."
Correct -- but why are volunteers like Rick Karr even in the
position of having to "make a case" at all? Why are DOT officials
whispering to open streets volunteers to step up their public
advocacy to give them cover, we've learned, when it should be the
other way around?
"How can this city sustain a program like this completely dependent
on volunteer labor and flimsy barricades?" asked Noel Hidalgo, who
is involved in the North Brooklyn effort and favors street
redesigns to do the bulk of the work of keeping thru-traffic at
bay.
"The open street on Driggs can easily be implemented by flipping
the direction of one or two blocks," he said. "That would
immediately calm the traffic on a quarter-mile stretch with two
elementary schools and the neighborhood's largest park. That type
of simple change would save this open street. The DOT toolkit is
available: flipping streets, putting down planters, adding jersey
barriers. It comes down to how much effort this mayor is willing to
make to ensure that this legacy-defining program is implemented."
Karr said he favored tight chicanes to slow down traffic, but such
a solution, or the ones proposed by Hidalgo are the stuff that DOT
tends to present at "visioning" sessions, but never seems to
install. (And the agency did not respond to several increasingly
urgent requests to comment for this story, even when told of the
injuries sustained by an open streets volunteer.)
Given Bill de Blasio's seemingly unique ability to be hated
simultaneously by progressives and conservatives during his
mayoralty, it should surprise no one that the mayor's failure to
create a clear program with clear designs and clear accountability
frustrates the open streets supporters and also the opponents. One
woman, who lives in the McGolrick Park area and started an
anti-open streets petition on Change.org, is also upset that a
program created by the city isn't run by the city.
"This was started as a COVID program and it largely worked, but if
this is going to continue, we need to know things like the hours,
who's in charge, what will be done about the trash, how will people
who do have cars get around," she said. "When I try to voice these
concerns to people who have some kind of power, I get accused of
attacking or misleading. The so-called 'anti-open streets' people
are painted as vicious car-loving eco-terrorists. And that is
really not the case." (Well, except in the case of Rick Karr, or
the people who vandalized the locks, or the people who run over and
destroy barricades or the people who tossed all the new barricades
into McGolrick Park the other day, or . . .)
The original petition didn't do itself any favors thanks to a
glaring inaccuracy -- including an allegation that 1,000 parking
spaces would be removed in the neighborhood. (The petition has been
updated in the "updates" tab, but few people read through those.)
The opponent claims she just wants the questions about the program
resolved (she also claims she's been harassed by open-streets
supporters).
And it's fair to point out that some open streets that were created
in the crucible of the pandemic weren't ideal given specific
neighborhood logistics (reminder: one of the city's original open
streets was Prospect Park West in Park Slope, but that was quickly
abandoned when residents of the side streets pointed out how much
traffic was being rerouted down their once-quiet roadways). There's
no reason that open streets that don't work perfectly can't be
switched out for other open streets that would work better -- well,
no reason except that the DOT open streets process is simply to
field applications from various volunteer groups rather than plan a
network of open streets based on the agency's knowledge and
experience.
This same person was at the meeting when two DOT employees were so
verbally abused that they withdrew. It took place in the 94th
Precinct station house, and was meant to be a small session
featuring two open streets opponents (not this person) who demanded
a meeting with DOT so that they, like the open streets volunteers,
could have direct communication with city officials.
It didn't go well. First, one attendee, a veteran, threatened to
remove his pants to show off bullet wounds he sustained in one of
America's many wars, apparently an effort to show that DOT isn't
even listening to the needs of veterans (who own cars).
Then, according to our source, it got even more heated, with two
opponents speaking belligerently to DOT officials Kyle Gorman and
Ronda Messer, who tried to respond but then left.
"I was there just as an observer," she said. "The DOT people were
being shouted at and being interrupted. So it was very
understandable that they left. I don't know how you can be expected
to remain calm as people are screaming at you."
It's unclear what happens next. And that is a problem.
The irony, of course, is that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers
-- even many who own cars -- are enjoying the de Blasio
administration's open streets. Streetfilms visited four of the best
ones, and the resulting video makes a strong argument that the city
should do something fast. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Taxi Drivers File Class Suit Over Medallion Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Guse and Noah Goldberg, writing for New York Daily News,
reports that a new class action lawsuit says a decade of negligence
and corruption by New York City officials destroyed the value of
yellow taxi medallions, and demands $2.5 billion in restitution.
The suit alleges a years-long scheme in which the city
"artificially" inflated yellow cab medallion prices it sold to
cabbies at auction by lying about their value.
From 2004 to 2014, the medallion sales netted city coffers $855
million, the suit says.
But the city then created competition for the yellow cabs by
allowing Uber and Lyft to operate tens of thousands of for-hire
vehicles in the city. That tanked medallion prices -- and all the
while, the city did nothing to help yellow taxi drivers who were
put financially underwater, the lawsuit says.
"There was a large-scale fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
medallion values and drive up the prices," said lawyer Jon
Norinsberg, who represents the cabbies. "It'd be one thing if the
medallion prices rose through natural market conditions. But
between 2004 and 2014 they skyrocketed as a result of fraudulent
manipulation by the TLC and the city of New York."
The suit as filed names two medallion owners as plaintiffs -- but
the lawyers behind it expect thousands of cabbies will join the
case. Neither the city nor the TLC immediately responded to a
request for comment on the lawsuit.
The city's taxi medallion program launched in 1937 to rein in the
growing number of cabs on city streets. The number of medallions --
which gave yellow cabs the exclusive right to respond to street
hails -- was fixed for decades at 11,787.
That changed in 1996, when then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani began
auctioning new medallions. The program continued under Mayor Mike
Bloomberg, and the number of medallions on the street grew to
13,500. Cabbies saw the medallions as a good investment, and their
selling prices exceeded $1 million by 2013.
But their values fell to less than $150,000 in the following years
as e-hail companies like Uber and Lyft were permitted to operate
for-hire vehicles that do not require medallions in the city.
The suit alleges city officials were in 2011 warned the medallion
market would collapse by TLC staffer Gary Roth, who wrote a memo
made public in 2019 warning that "if the price of medallions
dropped significantly, it could force recent medallion buyers
underwater."
Despite Roth's findings, the TLC continued to auction off new
medallions for sky-high prices, the suit says.
The suit also alleges that former TLC officials Matt Daus and David
Yassky met in Sept. 2012 to hatch a plan to allow Uber and Lyft to
put an unlimited number of cars on city streets in what "would
prove to be the coup de grace for the New York yellow taxi
industry."
A lawyer for Daus strongly denied the allegations and noted that
Daus left the TLC in 2010. According to the lawyer, Daus "was out
of town on Sept. 25, 2012, and did NOT have a meeting with Mr.
Yassky on that date, or any other date, about medallions -- or
assisting Uber or Lyft with launching in New York City or
elsewhere. In fact, Uber had already launched in New York City in
May 2011, which is 16 months prior to this alleged meeting."
It also claims that city officials deliberately lied when they
advertised medallions as airtight investments, and did nothing to
stop bid-rigging by taxi medallion owner Evgeny Friedman.
Norinsberg said federal racketeering law means the medallion owners
are owed three times the $855 million in revenue the city earned
through medallion sales from 2004 to 2014.
Bloomberg, the TLC, the city, Friedman and several other city
officials are listed as defendants.
The suit follows Attorney General Letitia James' decision in
February to back off from plans to file a $810 million lawsuit that
would have accused the city of fraudulently inflating medallion
values. Norinsberg said his team plans to "finish the job" James
started.
Mayor de Blasio in recent years has taken some steps to crack down
on Uber and Lyft by limiting the number of cars the companies can
operate on city streets, a move many yellow taxi drivers believe
came too late. De Blasio last month also announced a program to
give struggling cabbies $20,000 no-interest loans to help them
refinance their bloated debts. [GN]
NOKIA CORP: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 29, 2021, Judge Andrew L. Carter of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a
motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a
Finnish telecommunications company (the "Company") and its former
CEO for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In re Nokia Corp. Sec. Litig.,
No. 19-cv-3982 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021). Plaintiff alleged the
Company made false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding (i) the success of its post-merger integration with
another telecommunications company (the "Acquired Company"); and
(ii) the Company's readiness to transition to 5G wireless cellular
network technology ("5G"). The Court dismissed the claims for
failure to plead an actionable misstatement or omission.
In November 2016, the Company announced that it had completed the
merger. In February 2017, the Company announced completion of all
post-merger integration projects "with the exception of a small
handful of long-tail efforts." However, in March 2019, the Company
announced compliance issues at the Acquired Company that could
result in significant civil and criminal penalties. In October
2019, the Company also disclosed that it had encountered a variety
of difficulties transitioning to 5G, including uncertainty
associated with the merger. Against this backdrop, plaintiff
alleged that the statements from March 2017 through early 2019
touting the Company's integration progress and 5G preparedness,
such as "we are effectively moving beyond the integration effort,"
"the heavy lifting is over," and "we are in a very strong position
for 5G," were misleading because the Company did not disclose
ongoing risks associated with the integration that also jeopardized
the Company's 5G preparedness.
The Court rejected plaintiff's claim that the Company's statements
regarding integration with the Acquired Company were false. The
Court explained that plaintiff did not identify any integration
milestones that the Company falsely claimed to have achieved, and
that the complaint's "vague references" to "significant problems"
with integration were insufficient to plead an omission related to
the Acquired Company's compliance issues. The Court also held that
the Company's repeated risk disclosures about the uncertainties of
integration -- including the risk that the Company may be subject
to penalties for the Acquired Company's past compliance violations
-- further supported the conclusion that the Company did not
mislead investors regarding the status of the integration. The
Court added that, even if plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to
show the statements were false, the statements "touting the
progress of the integration" would nonetheless constitute
non-actionable puffery.
Next, the Court rejected plaintiff's claim that the Company's
statements regarding its readiness to transition to 5G were false
because the Court could not "reasonably infer" that the Company's
integration challenges were so significant that they rendered its
statements about its 5G readiness false. The Court emphasized that
research analysts at the time attributed the Company's 5G
transition difficulties to a "confluence of factors," many of which
were unrelated to integration with the Acquired Company. The Court
also noted that the Company publicly disclosed the difficulties it
experienced in transitioning to 5G, including difficulties related
to integration with the Acquired Company. The Court added that,
even if plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to show the
statements were false, the vast majority of them were
forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor.
Finally, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
because doing so would be futile given the Company's "numerous and
continuous disclosures" regarding post-merger integration and the
5G transition. [GN]
NYU HOSPITALS: Appeals Denial of Summary Judgment Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Colette Valentine, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NYU Hospitals
Center, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 154138/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty., April 12, 2021), Defendant NYU Langone Hospitals
(f/k/a NYU Hospitals Center) appeals to the Appellate Division from
the Decision and Order issued by the Honorable Justice Paul A.
Goetz, J.S.C. of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, and entered on February 23, 2021, which denied NYU's
Motion for leave to Renew its Motion for Summary Judgment,
following the Court's denial of NYU's Motion for Summary Judgment
by Order entered on February 20, 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C
1613 Northern Boulevard
Roslyn, NY 11576
Phone: (516) 625-0105
Email: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert S. Whitman, Esq.
Lisa L. Savadjian, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 218-5500
Email: rwhitman@seyfarth.com
lsavadjian@seyfarth.com
ONTRAK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on April 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:OTRK) 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
5, 2020 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. Ontrak's largest customer gauged the
Company's performance on the basis of reaching the lowest cost per
medical visit possible rather than patient outcomes or medical cost
savings. This customer found the Company's program to be
ineffective and was likely to terminate its contract. Because this
customer represented a significant portion of the Company's
revenue, the loss of this contract would have a significant impact
on its financial results. 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 Ontrak,
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.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
OUTBACK CARE: Faces Wrenn Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in M.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WRENN and SHARAH TOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OUTBACK CARE GROUP LLC and
KEN BLACKMON, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga.,
April 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees
appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiff Wrenn worked for the Defendants from approximately
November 2019 to April 2020. His last position was a house
manager.
Plaintiff Tolbert worked for the Defendants from approximately
February 2018 to July 2019. Her last position was a live-in care
provider.
Outback Care Group LLC is an assisted living facility operator,
with its principal place of business located at 6930 Buena Vista
Road, Columbus, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
Michael David Forrest, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com
OZARK MOUNTAIN: Fails to Properly Pay Poultry Workers, Johnson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC. and GEORGE'S,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-05075-PKH (W.D. Ark., April 23,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay
proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a pallet jack operator
from June 2020 to March 2021.
Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc. is a manufacturer of poultry products
based in Rogers, Arkansas.
George's, Inc. is a poultry company headquartered in Springdale,
Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
PHILIP MORRIS: Craig Sues Over Harmful Effects of Cigarettes
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CRAIG, as Personal Representative of the Estate of CURTIS
J. CRAIG, Plaintiff v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS
TOBACCO COMPANY; LIGGETT GROUP LLC; and PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-008337 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct.,
Broward Cty., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment,
fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraudulent
misrepresentation, and wrongful death pursuant to the Florida's
Wrongful Death Act.
According to the complaint, the Decedent smoked and inhaled the
Defendants' cigarette products which caused and/or substantially
contributed to the development of his lung cancer, in addition to
other related physical conditions, which resulted in and directly
caused him to suffer severe bodily injuries, and his untimely
death. The Defendants allegedly designed their cigarettes to be
highly addictive, which made it difficult for users, such as the
Decedent, to terminate or restrict their chronic use. Moreover, the
Defendants omitted and failed to disclose material information
about the harms of smoking, the suit added.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a cigarette manufacturer headquartered
in Richmond, Virginia.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a manufacturer of tobacco products
based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Liggett Group LLC is a tobacco company headquartered in Durham,
North Carolina.
Publix Super Markets, Inc. is an operator of a chain of
supermarkets based in Lakeland, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Alvarez, Esq.
THE ALY AREZ LAW FIRM
3251 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 444-7675
Facsimile: (305) 444-0075
E-mail: alex@TALF.Law
phillip@TALF.Law
michael@TALF.Law
nick@TALF.Law
PLUG POWER: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 7 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) ("Plug Power") between
November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14446&wire=5
Allegations against PLUG include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) 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) the Company was reasonably likely to
report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (3) 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 suffered a loss in Plug Power you have until May 7, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Silberman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Silberman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-03592
(S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[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
PRAIRIE FARMS: Wach Sues Over Ice Cream's Deceptive Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY WACH, BRYAN BOR, and LEROY JACOBS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRAIRIE FARMS
DAIRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02191 (N.D. Ill., April
22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson
Moss Warranty Act, Negligent Misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, and consumer protection statutes of other states.
The case arises from the Defendant's false and deceptive
advertising, labeling, and marketing of Premium Vanilla ice cream.
The Defendant advertises, labels, and sells the product to contain
a non-negligible amount of extracts from vanilla beans and only
natural flavoring ingredients. In reality, the vanilla taste in the
product is from synthetic, non-natural flavorings. The Plaintiffs
and Class members were harmed by the misrepresentations. Had they
known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would
have paid less for it, the suit alleges.
Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. is a manufacturer of organic dairy
products, with a principal place of business in Edwardsville,
Illinois, Madison County. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Court Weighs Secondary Market Liability Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian, reports that a recent
securities case offers insight to litigants in class proceedings
alleging secondary market misrepresentations who are deciding
whether to pursue settlement after leave was granted or keep
defending the claim on the merits, a law firm blog has said.
"The decision in Pretium highlights the interplay and delta between
the 'reasonable possibility' standard applicable on the test for
leave under section 138.8 of the OSA, and the more stringent
'balance of probabilities' standard applicable to the ultimate
adjudication of an action on the merits," said the post written by
Lara Jackson, Christopher Horkins and Joseph Hamaliuk of Cassels
Brock & Blackwell LLP.
In Wong v. Pretium Resources, 2021 ONSC 54, the Superior Court of
Justice of Ontario was dealing with cross-motions for summary
judgment on certified common issues. Back in 2017, Justice Edward
Belobaba gave the plaintiff leave to begin an action for secondary
market misrepresentation under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act, RSO
1990, c S.5, then certified the action on consent as a class
proceeding. The Superior Court determined on the basis of the
reasonable possibility test that the plaintiff may succeed at
trial, noting that the defendants could still prevail in the full
litigation if they presented sufficient evidence to meet the
balance of probabilities standard.
In the 2021 case, the Superior Court said that summary judgment was
appropriate under Rule 20.04(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
because nearly all the evidence was documentary in nature,
including affidavits and cross-examination transcripts, and because
there were no credibility issues or other genuine issues needing a
trial.
The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The
court ruled that there were no misrepresentations or omissions of
any material fact on the part of the defendants.
The main issue before the court was whether the defendant gold
mining company's failure to disclose the negative opinions of one
of its mining consultants was an omission of a material fact and an
actionable misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities
Act.
The court found on a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendants did not have the obligation to disclose information that
they reasonably and objectively believed was misleading and bad.
The mining consultant's opinions were not material facts, given
that they were unsolicited, unreliable, inexpert and premature,
said the court.
The court found, upon considering the additional evidence the
defendants adduced, that the documents that the defendants released
in July and October 2013 did not contain misrepresentations and
that the defendants acted properly throughout and were relieved of
liability under the reasonable investigation defence. The court
noted that the defendants also presented compelling submissions for
two other statutory defences under s. 138.4(9) and s. 138.4(11) of
the Securities Act.
The blog post by Cassels said that this case also showed how being
granted leave to proceed would not ensure that the plaintiff would
fulfill the stricter evidentiary standard for a hearing on the
merits and confirmed that reliability of information was a required
precondition to materiality.
"Given the Court's decision in Pretium, plaintiffs may now be
hesitant to take their claims to the merits stage for fear of
having them dismissed at trial or summary judgment," the blog said.
[GN]
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Drips' Bid to Quash Moved to D. Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DRIPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM,
LLC, Respondent, Case No. 1:21-MC-00017-PAB (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Pamela A. Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio entered Memorandum Opinion & Order:
(i) transferring Drips' Motion to Quash to the U.S. District
Court of the District of Massachusetts pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f); and
(ii) denying as moot (a) Drips' Motion to Quash Subpoena to
Produce Documents and (b) proposed intervenor Joseph
Mantha's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer, which
Drips opposed.
The instant subpoena dispute stems from a series of ongoing and
highly contentious discovery disputes that arose in the underlying
action, Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, a putative class action
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In the underlying action, Plaintiff Mantha "seeks to represent two
nationwide classes, claiming that QuoteWizard violated the
do-not-call ("DNC") and automatic telephone dialing system
restrictions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sections 227 et seq." QuoteWizard contends that it had consumers'
consent to send them the messages at issue.
Drips, an Akron, Ohio-based technology company, is not a party to
the underlying action. It operates what it calls an "outreach
platform." This means that other companies pay to use Drips's
platform to contact their own customers. One of Drips' clients was
QuoteWizard. QuoteWizard utilized Drips' platform to send messages
to QuoteWizard customers.
In mid-2020, approximately one year into the underlying action,
Plaintiff Mantha requested 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 objected on relevance and burden grounds. Mantha also
requested 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." It also refused this request.
On Sept. 30, 2020, Mantha moved to compel production of these
documents by QuoteWizard. On Oct. 19, 2020, Magistrate Judge M.
Page Kelley ordered production of "all documents evidencing any
complaints" and of "all Do Not Call requests" in QuoteWizard's
custody, control, or possession. Neither party objected to
Magistrate Judge Kelley's ruling or sought clarification.
QuoteWizard supplemented its responses to Mantha's RFP by
representing that QuoteWizard had no documents that evidenced any
complaints QuoteWizard received from anyone.
Once again, Mantha moved to compel production of the Do Not Call
requests. QuoteWizard objected, arguing that such a production
exceeded the scope of Phase 1 discovery, would be unduly
burdensome, and concerned documents not within QuoteWizard's
possession under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Jan. 11,
2021, Magistrate Judge Kelley ruled again that QuoteWizard must
produce "all comments by consumers related to the 46,000 Do Not
Call requests, whether pertaining to 'complaints' about the texts
received or simply 'opt-outs'."
On Jan. 25, 2021, QuoteWizard objected to Magistrate Judge Kelley's
order requiring production of the Do Not Call requests, arguing
that the requests were not within its possession, custody, or
control. On Feb. 24, 2021, District Judge Leo Sorokin overruled
QuoteWizard's objections and concluded that the documents were
indeed within QuoteWizard's custody or control.
Having been thrice ordered to produce the Do Not Call requests and
related consumer comments, on March 1, 2021, QuoteWizard propounded
a subpoena on Drips to produce the records so that QuoteWizard
could produce them to Mantha. QuoteWizard demanded that Drips
produce all comments made by consumers to Drips related to all Do
Not Call Requests (as classified by Drips) made by consumers who
received telemarking texts from Drips on behalf of QuoteWizard.
On March 15, 2021, Drips filed the instant Motion to Quash, arguing
that the subpoena is unduly burdensome. Because Drips is
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, Drips seeks relief from the Court, as
the Northern District of Ohio is "the district where compliance
with the subpoena is required."
However, discovery disputes in the underlying action continued to
arise. On March 18, 2021, three days after Drips filed its Motion
to Quash, Respondent QuoteWizard appeared in the Court and filed a
"Notice of Relevant Order Issued in Underlying Case." According to
QuoteWizard, Judge Sorokin had ordered QuoteWizard to file a copy
of a March 16, 2021 Order issued in the underlying action with the
Court.
Judge Sorokin, in his March 16, 2021 Order, denied QuoteWizard's
motion for reconsideration of his previous Feb. 24, 2021 ruling in
which he ordered QuoteWizard to produce the 46,000 records. Thus,
for a fourth time, the District of Massachusetts ordered
QuoteWizard to produce these records. However, Judge Sorokin also
noted that, on March 15, 2021, QuoteWizard alerted the District of
Massachusetts that QuoteWizard subpoenaed the records from Drips
but that Drips had filed the instant Motion to Quash with the
Court.
This kicked off another round of briefing between Mantha and
QuoteWizard in the District of Massachusetts, this time focused
squarely on whether compelling production of these 46,000 records
would impose an undue burden on Drips. On March 23, 2021, Mantha
filed his brief, urging the District of Massachusetts to reject
QuoteWizard's "convenient and late claims of burden." On March 25,
2021, QuoteWizard filed a supplemental brief, urging the District
of Massachusetts not to compel production of the records because of
the undue burden on Drips. On March 26, 2021, Mantha obtained
leave to file, and subsequently filed, a surreply.
Meanwhile in the Court, on March 23, 2021, proposed intervenor
Mantha filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer Drips's
Motion to Quash to the District of Massachusetts. According to
Mantha, "exceptional circumstances" exist in the matter to merit
transferring Drips' Motion to Quash out of its own home district
and over to the District of Massachusetts, where the underlying
action continues.
On March 29, 2021, Respondent QuoteWizard filed a Motion to Stay
Its Response Deadline to Petitioner's Motion to Quash Pending
Forthcoming Rulings that will Affect or Govern This Dispute. In
its Motion to Stay, QuoteWizard requested that the Court stay
QuoteWizard's deadline to respond to Drips' Motion to Quash because
QuoteWizard anticipated that Judge Sorokin would soon rule on the
exact issue of Drips's alleged undue burden in the underlying
action and QuoteWizard wished to avoid inconsistent rulings between
the District of Massachusetts and the Court. In the alternative,
QuoteWizard requested a 10-day extension of its deadline to
respond. The Court granted QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay in part to
the extent that QuoteWizard sought a 10-day extension but indicated
that the Court would await a response from Drips with respect to
QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay.
On April 6, 2021, Drips filed its Brief in Opposition to Mantha's
Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer. On April 7, 2021,
Drips requested, and the Court granted it, leave to file by April
14, 2021, a response to QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay.
On April 8, 2021, QuoteWizard filed its Brief in Opposition to
Drips's Motion to Quash. It offered no substantive opposition to
Drips' Motion to Quash, despite having been ordered four times by
the District of Massachusetts to produce the records at issue.
However, according to QuoteWizard's Opposition, briefing regarding
Drips' burden continued in the underlying action past Mantha's
March 26, 2021 sur-reply.
In an order dated March 31, 2021, the District of Massachusetts
"noted from Mantha's filings that it appeared that Drips had been
able to produce similar do not call records, and indeed
approximately 226,000 of them, in a putative class action case in
the Northern District of California." Judge Sorokin observed that
Drips's production in the Northern District of California matter
appeared to be inconsistent with Drips's current assertion that
46,000 records would be unduly burdensome in the underlying action.
Accordingly, Judge Sorokin gave QuoteWizard and/or Drips seven
days, or until April 7, 2021, to file a supplemental brief
explaining "why Drips was able to produce the records in that other
case but was arguing that producing similar records herein would be
unduly burdensome." According to QuoteWizard, Drips declined Judge
Sorokin's "invitation" to brief the issue of undue burden in the
District of Massachusetts, but QuoteWizard filed a supplemental
brief in the District of Massachusetts on April 7, 2021.
Five days later, on April 13, 2021, QuoteWizard withdrew its April
6, 2021 response to proposed intervenor Mantha's Motion to
Intervene and Motion to Transfer. According to QuoteWizard,
although it initially consented to Mantha's Motion to Transfer on
April 6, 2017, it now withdrew that consent. QuoteWizard
represented to this Court that it was "appealing all aspects of the
ongoing discovery dispute in the underlying case" and, as a result,
took "no position on the subject motion to intervene and transfer."
Indeed, QuoteWizard.com, LLC v. Joseph Mantha was docketed in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on March 30, 2021.
Despite having been granted leave to file a response to
QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay by April 14, 2021, Drips failed to do
so. Further, while Drips's Reply in Support of its Motion to Quash
was due on April 15, 2021, Drips filed no such Reply by April 15,
2021. Instead, due to a filing error, Drips inadvertently refiled
its April 7, 2021 Motion for Leave on April 15, 2021. Drips did
not correct the error and file its Reply until April 16, 2021, a
day late. In its Reply, Drips included its response to
QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay.
However, despite the Reply and response being untimely, Judge
Barker considers both. Upon review, the Judge concludes that, in
light of the instant exceptional circumstances, transfer of the
matter to the District of Massachusetts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(f) is appropriate.
First, the underlying action has been pending in the District of
Massachusetts for approximately 18 months. Second, the District of
Massachusetts is currently considering the identical issue
regarding undue burden on Drips. Further, if the Court evaluated
Drips' Motion Quash, it would necessarily have to weigh the need
for the discovery of these 46,000 records against Drips' alleged
undue burden. While she does not take lightly the transfer of a
local nonparty's Motion to an out-of-district court, the Judge
opines that the exceptional circumstances outweigh Drips' burden.
The dispute is considerably more complex and, in balancing the need
for discovery of the 46,000 records against Drips' interest in
nondisclosure, implicates substantive issues at the heart of the
underlying action, not a straightforward disagreement over the
scope of electronic discovery.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Barker concludes that the
exceptional circumstances outweigh any burden transfer may impose
on Drips. Under Rule 45(f), she transfers the Motion to Quash to
the District of Massachusetts. Because she transfers the instant
Motion, she denied as moot proposed intervenor Mantha's Motion to
Intervene and Motion to Transfer and Respondent QuoteWizard's
Motion for Stay.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3p47xfst from
Leagle.com.
R&D TECHNICAL: Galvan Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR RUIZ GALVAN, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, v. R&D TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a California
Corporation; L3 HARRIES TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 21CV378924 (Calif. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., March 30, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to
pay all wages including overtime wages and minimum wages under the
California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class were
required 8 hours a day and/or 40 hours per week without lawful
compensation. They were also subject to an unlawful rounding policy
for their compensable work time.
This is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the
class of similarly and current employees. The class members consist
of non-exempt, hourly-paid employees currently and formerly
employed by the Defendant.
R&D Technical Services is a staffing agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
Edward Kim, Esq.
22939 Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Telephone: (866) 496-7552
Facsimile: (424) 355-8535
E-mail: Justin@caworklawyer.com
Ed@lfiworklawggr.com
REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Repro Med
Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KORU" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: KRMD) 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 August 4,
2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 25, 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. KORU increased the usage of allowances
such as growth rebates to key customers to retain their business
and improve growth starting in January 2020. As these rebates built
up, the Company's net sales were likely to decline. 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 KORU, 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.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
ROGERS WIRELESS: Customers to Get Early Termination Fee Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Helena Hanson, writing for Narcity, reports that right now, there
are multiple class-action lawsuits across Canada that could
directly impact you.
If you have shopped at Sears Canada, bought a prepaid credit card
or purchased an iPhone, you could be eligible for some financial
compensation.
"A class action is a procedural device that permits one or more
plaintiffs to file and prosecute a lawsuit on behalf of a larger
group, or 'class,'" according to the Wex Legal Dictionary. They are
often filed against government entities, financial institutions,
manufacturers, retailers or employers, for example.
Although many people can be impacted by a single class-action suit,
you won't always be contacted directly about your involvement.
With that in mind, here are some of the biggest class-action suits
happening in Canada right now that could put money straight back
into your pocket:
Who Can Apply: Per this lawsuit, Rogers Wireless Communications was
ordered to reimburse former customers for the Early Termination Fee
of phone contracts paid between February 2008 and June 2013.
To be eligible for money back, you'll need to be a resident of
Quebec and have entered into a contract between January 1, 2007,
and June 30, 2010.
You'll also need to have ended the contract before the end of its
term and paid the ETF between February 21, 2008, and June 30, 2013.
[GN]
ROOT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Root Inc. 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. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]
ROOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Root, Inc.
("Root" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ROOT) for violations of the
federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's October 28, 2020 initial public offering
(the "IPO"), or between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021 both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the
firm before May 18, 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. Root was likely to fail to generate
positive cash flow for years following its IPO. As a result, the
Company was likely to require injections of cash to fund its
operations. The Company touted its data-driven advantages in the
marketplace, but its established industry competitors had already
developed superior technology that resulted in a competitive
advantage over the Company. Based on these facts, the Company's
Offering documents and public statements during the IPO and class
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Root, 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.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Jane Doe Sues Over Breach of Patient Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe #2, individually, an on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROPER ST. FRANCIS HEALTHCARE, and TORTFEASORS 1-10,
Case No. 2021CP1001668 (S.C. Ct. of Common Please, 9th Judicial
Ct., Charleston Cty., April 12, 2021), is brought arising from the
breach of private patient data, personal, financial, medical, and
otherwise that was compromised by the negligent acts and omissions
of Roper St. Francis, their agents, servants, employees and
assigns.
According to the complaint, Roper St. Francis has had a history of
data breaches since 2019. Roper knew the data it stored was
vulnerable to cyberattack based upon these repeated and ongoing
data breaches. Specifically, Roper St. Francis had three previous
hacking incidents before the one complained of herein: (a) The
first reported on January 29, 2019 that effected 35,253 people; (b)
The second reported on September 3, 2020 that affected 6,000
people; and (c) The third reported on September 8, 2020 that
effected 92,963 people.
In January of 2021, the Defendant sent out notice letters informing
former and current patients of a data breach involving their
private medical, personal and financial information stating that,
"On November 11, 2020 we learned that an unauthorized individual
gained access to three workforce members' email accounts between
October 14, 2020 and October 29, 2020." The notice letter confirmed
that her confidential private medical and financial information
which she had entrusted to the Defendant had been released without
her authorization or consent. This information had been provided
to- and entrusted to Defendant- as part and parcel of Plaintiff's
decision to undergo medical services with the Defendant.
The Defendants maintained the Plaintiff and Class Members' private
information on a shared network, server, and/or software. Despite
its own awareness of past data breaches on its own systems, the
Defendants did not maintain adequate security of the Plaintiff and
Class Members' data, to protect against hackers and cyberattacks.
This is an action on behalf of the the Plaintiff and all members of
the Class to recover from the Defendants' ongoing continued and
unmitigated negligence in allowing the latest Data Breach, and
recovery of damages to make the Plaintiff and Class members whole,
or as nearly as whole as possible, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Jane Doe is a resident of the state of South
Carolina, County of Charleston.
The Defendant is a corporation, organized and existing under the
laws of the State of South Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., Esq.
Anna E. Richter, Esq.
THE RICHTER FIRM, LLC
622 Johnnie Dodds Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: 843-849-6000
Email: LRichter@RichterFirm.com
Anna@RichterFirm.com
- and -
Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq.
SLOTCHIVER & SLOTCHIVER LLP
751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 100
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Phone: 843-577-6531
Email: dan@slotchiverlaw.com
- and -
Carl L. Solomon, Esq.
SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC
P.O. Box 1866
Columbia, SC 29202
Phone: (803) 391-3120
Email: carl@solomonlawsc.com
- and -
Brent S. Halversen, Esq.
BRENT SOUTHER HALVERSEN, LLC
751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 200
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
Phone: 843-284-5790
Email: brent@halversenlaw.com
RUSHMORE LOAN: Faces Pueschel FCPA Suit in Massachusetts State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Pueschel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No.
21-0739 (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., March 30, 2021) alleges that
Rushmore placed more than two debt collection calls to the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone within a seven-day period in an
attempt to collect an alleged debt from her, violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Defendant is a California-based residential mortgage servicer
and originator that regularly places more than two debt collection
calls in a seven-day period to Massachusetts consumers as part of
its residential mortgage servicing business.
Allegedly, Rushmore's debt collection calling practices are illegal
in Massachusetts. Indeed, the Massachusetts Attorney General has
regulated it an "unfair or deceptive act or practice for a
creditor" to "initiate a communication with any debtor via
telephone, either in person or via text messaging or recorded audio
message, in excess of two such communications in each seven-day
period to either the debtor's residence, cellular telephone, or
other telephone number provided bythe debtor as his or her personal
telephone number, for each debt, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent all consumers similarly situated.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to end Rushmore's illegal
practice, declaratory relief to make Rushmore's violations known to
the class, actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
SCHOLAR ROCK: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Scholar Rock Holding Corporation ("Scholar Rock" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SRRK). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Scholar Rock and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On April 6, 2021, Scholar Rock issued a press release announcing
what the Company described as "Positive 12-Month Top-Line Results
From the TOPAZ Phase 2 Clinical Trial Evaluating Apitegromab in
Patients With Type 2 and Type 3 Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)".
While the press release claimed that the "[d]ata further
demonstrate proof-of-concept for the therapeutic potential of
apitegromab in patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA," it also
disclosed that "[f]ive patients experienced a serious
treatment-emergent adverse event".
On this news, Scholar Rock's stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on April 6, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Sequential Brands Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SQBG) between November 3, 2016 and December 11, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 17, 2021 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Sequential 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 Sequential class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2006.html or 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 May 17, 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 4 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) in late 2016, Sequential knew
or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2)
Sequential avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill
in late 2016 through 2017; (3) Sequential understated its operating
expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income
from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017;
(4) Sequential's internal controls were deficient; (5) Sequential
has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties,
deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control
violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Sequential was at
greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a
result, defendants' statements about Sequential'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.
To join the Sequential class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2006.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Sequential
Brands Group, Inc. ("Sequential Brands" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
SQBG) for violations of Secs. 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
3, 2016 and December 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 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. Sequential Brands knew or should have
known in late 2016 that its goodwill was impaired. The Company used
every tactic possible to delay the material write down in goodwill
starting in late 2016 and into 2017. The Company materially
understated its operating expenses and net loss while
simultaneously overstating its income from operations, goodwill,
and assets during this period. The Company failed to maintain
internal controls. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Sequential
Brands, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
SIMPLY WHOLESOME: Lyons Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY WHOLESOME and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV15437 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 23, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to
pay earned wages upon discharge, and failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements.
Mr. Lyons was employed by Simply Wholesome as a sandwich maker from
2017 until February of 2021.
Simply Wholesome is a restaurant owner and operator located in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Narak Mirzaie, Esq.
M LAW ATTORNEYS, APC
680 East Colorado Blvd. Suite 180
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 626-4422
Facsimile: (626) 626-4420
SIX CONTINENTS: Harris Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tanya Harris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Case No.
21-cv-001043 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida on April 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00439-MMH-PDB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. operates hotels and motels. The Company
offers accommodation, spa, and catering services for weddings,
events, and corporate meetings, as well as provides leisure
activities such as skiing, tennis, fishing, cooking schools,
fitness facilities, dining, and water sports.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon T. White, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 374-8500
Fax: (305) 789-7799
Email: brandon.white@hklaw.com
- and -
Jessica Sarah Kramer, Esq.
Jason H. Baruch, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP – Tampa
100 N Tampa St., Suite 4100
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 227-6578
Fax: (813) 229-0134
Email: jessica.kramer@hklaw.com
jason.baruch@hklaw.com
SLOAN VALVE: Popplewell's FLSA Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRICE POPPLEWELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. SLOAN VALVE COMPANY, Case No.
4:21-cv-00325-BRW (E.D. Ark., April 21, 2021) is a class action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act (AMWA) for declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime
compensation.
The complaint alleges that despite the entitlement of Plaintiff to
minimum wage and overtime payments under the FLSA, Defendant failed
to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in each
one-week period. Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime wages
to Plaintiff stems from Defendant's acts of illegally rounding
hours worked by Plaintiff in Defendant's favor and not paying
Plaintiff for all hours worked at a lawful rate, asserts the
complaint.
Plaintiff Brice Popplewell was employed by Defendant as an
hourly-paid employee within the three years relevant to this
lawsuit.
Sloan Valve Company is a foreign for-profit corporation, registered
and licensed to do business in the State of Arkansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
Greg Ivester, Esq.
WHLaw I We Help
1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Telephone:(501)891-6000
E-mail: chris@wh.law
greg@wh.law
SOS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) and
Canoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV). Stockholders have until the deadlines
below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.
SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS)
Class Period: July 22, 2020 to February 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021
When the Company went public in April 2017, it was known as "China
Rapid Finance Limited" and claimed to focus on a peer-to-peer,
micro-lending business. The Company later changed its name to "SOS
Limited" in July 2020 and sold its peer-to-peer, micro-lending
business in August 2020, rebranding itself into an emergency
services business. In January 2021, the Company again shifted its
business focus, this time to cryptocurrency mining.
Critical to SOS's purportedly successful transition into a
cryptocurrency mining business were the Company's claims to have
entered into an agreement with HY International Group New York Inc.
("HY"), which calls itself the "world's largest mining machine
matchmaker," to acquire 15,645 mining rigs -- i.e., personal
computing machines built specifically for cryptocurrency mining --
for $20 million, and the Company's plans to purchase FXK Technology
Corporation ("FXK"), a purported Canadian cryptocurrency technology
firm.
On February 26, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper
Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the
Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake
addresses and doctored photos of crypto mining rigs to create an
illusion of success. The analysts noted, for example, that SOS's
SEC filings listed a hotel room as the Company's headquarters. The
analysts also questioned whether SOS had actually purchased mining
rigs that it claimed to own, as the entity from which SOS
purportedly bought the mining rigs appeared to be a fake shell
company. The analysts further alleged that the photos SOS had
published of their purported "mining rigs" were phony. Culper noted
that photographs of SOS's "miners" did not depict the A10 Pro
machines that the Company claimed to own and instead appeared to
show different devices altogether. Hindenburg, for its part, found
that the original images from SOS's website actually belonged to
another company.
On this news, SOS's American depositary share price fell $1.27 per
share, or 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADS on February 26, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 30, 2021, alleges that, throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SOS had
misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or existence of at
least one of the principal executive offices listed in its SEC
filings; (ii) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties
and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (iii) the Company had
misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it
claimed to have purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
For more information on the SOS class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SOS
Canoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV)
Class Period: August 18, 2020 to March 29, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021
Canoo was formed by a business combination between Hennessy Capital
Acquisition Corp. IV (a special purpose acquisition (SPAC) company)
and Canoo Holdings Limited in December 2020. The Company is a
mobile technology company that develops electric vehicles. The
complaint, filed on April 2, 2021, alleges that prior to and after
the combination, the Company promoted a business model based on a
three-phased approach to generating revenue and growth: (i) an
engineering services segment, (ii) the sales of subscriptions to
vehicles to consumers, and (iii) the sale of vehicles to other
businesses.
On March 29, 2021, the Company revealed that it was radically
changing its business model by deemphasizing its engineering
services business and by no longer focusing on its
subscription-based business.
In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or $21.2%)
from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30
per share on March 30, 2021.
The complaint further alleges that defendants misled investors by
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose that: (i) the Company's
engineering services segment was not a viable business, would not
provide meaningful revenue in 2021, and would not reduce
operational risk; (ii) that the Company would no longer be focused
on its subscription-based business model; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Canoo class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/GOEV
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
SOS LIMITED: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 1 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of those who acquired SOS Limited ("SOS" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SOS) American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's) during the period
from July 22, 2020, through February 25, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
All investors who purchased the ADR's of SOS Limited 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 ADR's of SOS Limited., you may,
no later than June 1, 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 ADR's of SOS
Limited.
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JOIN CASE
The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose to investors:
-- SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or
existence of at least one of the principal executive offices listed
in its SEC filings;
-- HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or
entities fabricated by the Company;
-- the Company had misrepresented the type and/or existence of
the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On February 26, 2021 Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper
Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the
Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake
addresses and doctored photos of crypto rigs to create an illusion
of success.
On this news, SOS's ADR price declined by $1.27 per ADR, or
approximately 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADR on February 26,
2021.
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]
STAFFMARK GROUP: Misclassifies Recruiters, Ruiz Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STAFFMARK GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-00664 (C.D. Cal, April 9, 2021) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, and the California Business and Professional Code.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Recruiter from
approximately August 2015 until May 2018.
According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly classified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated recruiters as exempt
employees. Although they regularly worked more than 40 hours each
week, the Defendant allegedly did not pay them their lawfully
earned overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 per
week.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover from the
Defendant all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalty damages,
litigation costs, attorneys' fees, pre- ad post-judgment interest,
and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
Staffmark Group, LLC is an employment and staffing company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
Walnut, CA 91789
Tel: (713) 999-5228
Fax: (713) 999-1187
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
STAR MULTI: Sirmons et al. Seek Homecare Providers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MI'JETTE SIRMONS and TIFFANY HOUSEHOLDER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAR
MULTI CARE HOLDING CORP., EFCC ACQUISITION CORP., and AMSERY
HEALTHCARE OF OHIO INC. d/b/a CENTRAL STAR HOME HEALTH SERVIES and
d/b/a EXTENDED FAMILY CARE OF OHIO, and STEPHEN STERNBACH,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00456-DSC (W.D. Penn., April 9, 2021),
challenges the Defendants' unlawful policies and practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were jointly
employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid and non-exempt homecare
providers in the positions of Licensed Practical Nurses, State
Tested Nurse's Aides, and Home Health Aides. Plaintiff Sirmons
worked for the Defendants from approximately April 2018 to April
2020, while Plaintiff Householder was from approximately September
8, 2020 to December 23, 2020.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant did not pay them and other
similarly situated hourly homecare providers for the time they
spent travelling from one patient location to the next in the same
workday and did not count this time as hours worked for the
workweek. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours
in a workweek, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homecare
providers were not properly paid overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week. Additionally, the Defendants
failed to make, keep and preserve records of all the hours worked
by their homecare providers, the Plaintiffs allege.
The Plaintiffs bring this collective and class action complaint
against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, and other relief as
the Court deems just and proper.
The Corporate Defendants individually and jointly operate as an
enterprise providing various home health care services. They share
operational control over significant aspects of the day-to-day
functions of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees.
The Individual Defendant Sternbach has been the Chairman of the
Board of Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the
Star Multi Care Services since 1987. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robi J. Braishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 824-5770
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
STATER BROS: Ross Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cheylyn Ross, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Stater Bros. Markets, Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1902518 was removed from the San
Bernardino Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on April 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00720 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Stater Bros. Markets -- https://www.staterbros.com/ -- is a local
grocery store serving communities, known for their meats, fresh
produce, fresh handcrafted sushi, and bringing new favorites.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan W Brandt, Esq.
VARNER AND BRANDT LLP
3750 University Avenue Suite 610
Riverside, CA 92501-3323
Phone: (951) 274-7777
Fax: (951) 274-7770
Email: brendan.brandt@varnerbrandt.com
SUFFOLK, NY: Judge Certifies Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael O'Keeffe, writing for Newsday, reports that a federal judge
this week certified a lawsuit accusing the Suffolk Police
Department of engaging in widespread racial discrimination against
Latinos as a class action, a decision lawyers for the plaintiffs
hope will lead to the appointment of an independent monitor to
oversee policing in the county.
An attorney with LatinoJustice, a Manhattan-based civil rights
organization that filed the lawsuit in 2015 on behalf of 21 Latinos
who live in Suffolk, said the decision by U.S. District Judge
William F. Kuntz will also result in the department developing --
and enforcing -- policies that promote equitable policing.
"Class-action status puts us in a position to force meaningful and
important reforms," said Jose L. Perez, deputy general counsel for
LatinoJustice who called the ruling "a major milestone."
The number of members of the class -- individuals subjected to
traffic or pedestrian stops since 2014, exceeds 100,000 --
according to court papers.
Suffolk County officials and the police department declined to
comment April 7, saying they could not discuss pending litigation.
On April 5, Kuntz agreed to a report and recommendation written by
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, who ruled on March 12 that the
case should proceed as a class action for purposes of injunctive
relief, such as the appointment of an independent monitor or
implementation of policies promoting fair policing.
Bloom denied class-action status for monetary damages, saying it
would be unwieldy to conduct hearings for thousands of individuals
allegedly impacted by police misconduct and poor practices.
The Suffolk County Legislature approved a police reform plan last
month that officials said would curb bias among officers. Gov.
Andrew M. Cuomo ordered law-enforcement agencies to submit police
reform by April 1 or risk losing state funding. Cuomo's order came
after the nationwide protests sparked by the death of George Floyd
while in the custody of Minneapolis police.
Civil rights activists said the Suffolk plan did not go far enough
and have argued for strong reforms, including creation of a review
board that would investigate complaints of police misconduct.
Atara Miller, an attorney for LatinoJustice, said the organization
could negotiate a settlement with the county or the judge could
order reforms, including appointment of an independent monitor.
"That is one of our principle goals," said Miller, a partner with
the Manhattan-based Milbank law firm.
The defendants in the lawsuit also include Scott A. Greene, a
former Suffolk police sergeant who was accused of stopping Latino
motorists in the Farmingville area and shaking them down for cash,
usually $100. A Suffolk jury convicted Greene of grand larceny and
other charges in 2016, and he was sentenced to one to three years
in prison. Greene, who is representing himself in the case, did not
return a request for comment.
According to the lawsuit, the discriminatory behavior by Suffolk
police continued even after the U.S. Justice Department launched a
federal investigation into the department after an immigrant from
Ecuador, Marcelo Lucero, was killed by a group of teenagers in
Patchogue in 2008. Suffolk police officials entered an agreement to
reform its policies with the U.S. Justice Department in 2014.
Suffok police have made progress in complying with the agreement,
according to a justice department report, which rated the
department in "substantial compliance" in three out of six main
categories.
Suffolk officials argued in court papers that Greene was a "lone
wolf" and that its police department using the agreement with the
justice department to reform its practices.
Suffolk police are not in full compliance with the Justice
Department agreement nearly seven years later, Miller said.
Enforcement of the agreement was lax during the Trump
administration, he said.
"The lives of Latino residents of Suffolk County should not be
subject to the whims of the federal government," Miller said. [GN]
SUTTER HEALTH: California AG Seeks Slice of Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce E. Cutler, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the
California Attorney General's Office and lawyers who sued Sutter
Health alleging antitrust violations are seeking 32% of the $575
million settlement that would end class-action litigation.
The fee petition comes ahead of a July 21 hearing in California
Superior Court for final approval of the proposed all-cash
settlement in the case over whether the health-care behemoth
manipulated its market power to boost prices.
The fees cover 216,661 hours for the five law firms representing
the United Food & Commercial Workers & Employers Benefit Trust
(UEBT) and the self-funded plans in the class action and for state
attorneys.
"It's a lot of zeroes but given the amount of money that Sutter has
been able to make using its market power, it's more a situation
where the attorneys' fees are in line," said Jaime Staples King, a
University of Auckland health law professor.
"I think over seven years the amount of time and energy and hours
to bring this case of this kind is unparalleled in the health-care
antitrust" space, said Staples King.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick PLLC; Pillsbury & Coleman LLP; Farella Braun + Martel
LLP; and McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry LLP represented the class
while the California Attorney General's Office represented the
state.
The lawyers cited the complex nature of the case against Sutter,
and the relief obtained in the settlement reached moments before a
potentially months-long jury trial was set to begin in October
2019.
Over the next 10 to 13 years, the injunctive relief will not only
moderate the prices of Sutter, it should also moderate the prices
of non-Sutter providers in Northern California, benefiting
health-care consumers throughout the Northern California hospital
market -- a market with annual revenue of over $20 billion, the fee
filing said. In short, plaintiffs' counsel obtained exceptional
results, the filing said.
"This is a landmark settlement," University of Texas Law professor
Charles Silver said in a filing supporting the fee motion.
"Considering only the $575 million cash component, it is one of the
largest state court class action settlements ever. It exceeds all
but a small fraction of federal class action settlements, too."
Long, Costly Case
The San Francisco Superior Court case was filed in 2014. The docket
has more than 5,100 entries. The attorneys analyzed hundreds of
millions of claims data records subpoenaed from insurance companies
and needed to prove overcharges spanning 16 years at 27 different
Sutter hospitals, the filing said.
The Attorney General's Office under the proposal would receive 2%
of the fund, and class counsel, who took the case on a contingency
basis, 30%.
The class attorneys also seek $21.3 million in costs for the case
filed in 2014, largely to pay for hiring experts.
"Together, we conducted ourselves as a single virtual law firm,
efficiently combining the many talents of the various legal
professionals that were necessary to successfully represent UEBT
and overcome what would soon become a scorched-earth defense by
Sutter and the five highly skilled law firms and scores of lawyers
that represented it in this litigation," wrote Richard Grossman,
Pillsbury & Coleman partner and co-lead counsel.
The filing notes that Sutter had more than 60 outside attorneys.
Jones Day and Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller represented Sutter.
Redgrave LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; and Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP also at times represented Sutter.
The 32% falls within the range of percentages that prevails in the
private market, which typically runs from 25% to 40% "even in cases
with the potential to generate enormous recoveries," said Silver,
who testifies as an expert on attorneys' fees.
The settlement contains an extensive package of injunctive reforms,
to last for at least 10 years, that are designed to prevent Sutter
Health from abusing its market power in the future by such measures
as requiring cost and quality transparency, Silver said.
"We think the litigation and settlement was a big deal—Sutter was
creating a template that other hospital chains were seeking to
emulate," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access
California | Health Access Foundation.
The case is UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health, Cal.
Super. Ct., No. CGC-14-538451, Motion filed. [GN]
SYMMETRY ENERGY: Face Certified Roses Suit Over Unfair Gas Charges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFIED ROSES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYMMETRY ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00133-JRG (E.D. Tex., April 15, 2021)
is a class action on behalf of all Symmetry customers who were
charged excessive prices and costs for natural gas during and
because of Winter Storm Uri of February 2021 (the "winter storm").
The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant supplied
natural gas and wrongfully passed on certain costs to its
customers. The Defendant saw an opportunity for profit, bypassed
its contractual obligations, and took advantage of its customers
during a vulnerable time. The Defendant charged the Plaintiff
$248,943.48 for its gas use in February 2021, an over 2,000%
increase from its February 2020 bill, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Defendant substantially harmed the Plaintiffs and the proposed
class by charging excessive prices and costs for natural gas during
and because of a disaster, says the suit.
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. provides energy distribution and
transmission services. The Company offers natural gas and related
energy management services for commercial, industrial, and
wholesale customers. CenterPoint Energy Gas Services serves its
clients in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derek H. Potts, Esq.
T. Micah Dortch, Esq.
J. Ryan Fowler, Esq.
POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP
3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 963-8881
E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com
mdortch@potts-law.com
rfowler@potts-law.com
TATA CONSULTANCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Alcala Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ALCALA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-03114 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant around November 2018 to
work as a "Systems Administrator" at its New York offices located
at 450 W 15th Street, New York 10011 until he was terminated around
November 2018.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified by the
Defendant as an exempt employee and he was paid a fixed annual
salary of $75,000. Despite working a total of around 45-50 hours
per week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime premiums for work
he performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, the
Defendant did not track the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees work hours despite having a punch clock to record their
hours work. The Defendant also failed to provide its employees with
proper wage statements, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have suffered
damages as a result of the Defendant's alleged willful violations
of the FLSA. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime
premium, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest,
and other compensation pursuant to the FLSA.
Tata Consultancy Services Limited provides information technology
and consultancy services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP
521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Tel: (718) 971-0326
Fax: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
TCM HEALTH: Yuan et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ZUOBIAO YUAN, XIAOTIAN HE, and LILI TIAN, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v.
TCM HEALTH CENTER, INC., THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF TRADITIONAL
CHINESE MEDICINE, INC., doing business as AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
ACUPUNCTURE AND ORIENTAL MEDICINE, INC., CHANGZHEN GONG, WEI LIU,
and the successors of the American Academy of Traditional Chinese
Medicine, Inc. and TCM Health Center, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
0:21-cv-00963 (D. Minn., April 9, 2021) bring this collective and
class action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants as acupuncturists and
acupuncture instructors, allege that the Defendants intentionally
deprived them and other similarly situated acupuncturists and
acupuncture instructors of straight time and overtime compensation
for all their hours worked. Purportedly, the Defendants required
them to work long hours due to staffing and scheduling needs, which
resulted to routinely working 50 to 80 hours to ensure patients
received the care needed. The Defendants, however, did not properly
compensated them for all hours they worked and even deducted 5% of
all their wages earned, the Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs also assert that throughout their employment with
the Defendants, the Defendants willfully failed to provide them
with meal breaks, maintain records of all hours they worked, and
provide them with proper wage statements.
On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated acupuncturists
and acupuncture instructors, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid
wages from the Defendants, as well as liquidated damages and civil
penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
The American Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Inc. d/b/a
American Academy of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Inc.
operates a private educational institution that focuses on teaching
traditional Chinese medicine and techniques. It is operated in
conjunction with Defendant TCM Health Center, Inc., which operates
a group of clinics that offer acupuncture and massage services to
the public. Changzhen Gong and Wei Liu jointly operate AAAOM and
TCM during the relevant time periods. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Liu, Esq.
INNOVATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, P.C.
400 S. 4th St., Suite 401
Minneapolis, MN, US 55415
Tel: (626) 344-8949
E-mail: Richard.liu@consultils.com
TEXAS: Order on Hegar's Plea to Jurisdiction in Best Buy Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Best Buy Stores, Inc., through its assignees Paul
Denucci, Rockey Piazza, and Linda Piazza, Appellant v. Glenn Hegar,
in His Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of
Texas, and Ken Paxton, in His Capacity as Attorney General of The
State of Texas, Appellees, Case No. 03-19-00246-CV (Tex. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Texas for the Third District, Austin, affirms
the district court's order granting the Comptroller's plea to the
jurisdiction.
In 2018, Assignees Best Buy, through its assignees Paul Denucci,
Rockey Piazza, and Linda Piazza, sued the Comptroller in district
court for a tax refund of $9,130,865.86 plus interest under Chapter
112 of the Texas Tax Code and for "limited declaratory findings."
The Comptroller responded with a plea to the jurisdiction.
Between 1998 and 2007, Best Buy had a rebate program for certain
goods Texas customers purchased from Best Buy. Pursuant to its
rebate program, when the customers submitted rebate forms, Best Buy
provided a partial refund of the retail price but did not refund
any of the collected sales tax the customers paid on the full
retail price.
"In the sales tax context, tax is collected by a seller adding the
sales tax to an initial sales price and then charging that amount
to the buyer as part of the new sales price," and "a person who
collects a tax holds that money in trust for the State." "When
such a tax is charged to a buyer, the buyer's understanding is that
the portion of the sale attributed to tax will be paid to the
government," and "the buyer also knows that any profit the seller
makes in the transaction is through the sales price alone." Best
Buy remitted the collected taxes for the full retail price to the
State.
The Assignees filed suit individually and as a class action against
Best Buy, seeking a refund directly from Best Buy, but later
amended their petition to seek an assignment from Best Buy of the
right to seek a tax refund from the Comptroller. Best Buy
initially proposed a settlement to refund the sales tax to members
of the class if Best Buy could receive assurances of a credit for
the refunds either by agreement with the Comptroller or by
declaratory judgment.
The Assignees then amended their petition to add the Comptroller as
a Defendant, the Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction, the
district court severed the individual claims and dismissed the
class action claim to compel an assignment of refund rights from
Best Buy, and the Assignees appealed the dismissal. Reversing the
district court's judgment and remanding the case, the Appellate
Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the
Assignees' claims to compel Best Buy to assign its tax refund
rights and to certify a class, but we did not opine on the merits
of those claims.
The Assignees and Best Buy then settled their case subject to a
class fairness hearing by agreeing that Best Buy would assign to
the Assignees and individual class members its right to bring a tax
refund claim. The district court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes only,
appointed the class counsel, and granted the class counsel the
power of attorney to represent the members in their individual
claims against the Comptroller.
After the class counsel filed written claims with the Comptroller
on behalf of the individual class members, the Comptroller denied
the refund claims, the class counsel filed suit in district court,
and the district court granted the Comptroller's plea to the
jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On
appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the district
court lacked jurisdiction to appoint the class counsel to represent
the class members in the presentation of their individual refund
claims to the Comptroller, that the portions of the order
purporting to appoint the class counsel as the counsel for the
individuals were void, and that the Assignees did not properly
exhaust their administrative remedies because the class counsel
lacked authority to file individual refund claims on the class
members' behalf.
In 2016, the Assignees then dismissed Best Buy from the suit,
"agreeing, considering the law of the case, that the Assignees have
no basis for a claim for damages against Best Buy." Best Buy in
turn agreed to an injunction compelling it to assign the class its
claims for a tax refund before the Comptroller. The Assignees and
Best Buy filed an "Agreed Final Injunction and Class Certification
Order" in district court, which the district court signed in July
2017.
The Agreed Order defined the class to include "all individuals or
entities who redeemed a mail-in, retailer rebate for a taxable
purchase made from Best Buy where the purchase occurred on or after
March 1, 1998 and before July 16, 2007"; appointed the class
counsel; and ordered Best Buy to execute an assignment to the class
of its right to a tax refund. The Agreed Order also ordered "the
Class to accept this assignment in lieu of any sales tax refund
paid directly by Best Buy, recognizing that the Class will attempt
to recover any sales taxes owed to the Class from the Comptroller,"
and "the Class Counsel" -- "if the Class succeeds and recovers
money" -- to "return to the Court with a proposal for distributing
that recovery, inclusive of distribution expenses and a request to
recover Class Counsel's fees and expenses from the money recovered
from the Comptroller."
In August 2017, Best Buy assigned its right to request a tax refund
to the Assignees "individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated," and the Assignees substituted in place of Best
Buy as the claimants in the pending administrative hearing for the
tax refund. In April 2018, the Comptroller denied the tax refund
claim, concluding that the Texas Tax Code does not authorize a
class to file a tax refund claim or give the Comptroller authority
to grant a class action refund claim.
After the Comptroller denied the Assignees' motion for rehearing,
the Assignees brought the underlying suit in district court. The
Comptroller responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, raising five
grounds: (1) the Assignees' claim for declaratory relief seeks an
impermissible redundant remedy, (2) the Assignees' rehearing motion
failed to state any grounds of error that could result in their
entitlement to a tax refund, (3) the Assignees could not receive a
refund because Best Buy never refunded the taxes to the customers
as required by Section 111.104(f) of the Texas Tax Code, (4) Best
Buy had already assigned its right to a tax refund prior to
bringing the underlying administrative refund claim, and (5) the
Texas Tax Code does not provide for a class action tax refund suit.
The district court granted the plea, and the Assignees appealed
from the dismissal.
On appeal, the Assignees raise four issues, one of which we
consider dispositive: whether the district court erred in
dismissing the Assignees' claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, a question the Appellate Court reviews de novo. In
response to this issue, the Comptroller argues that the district
court did not err in dismissing the plea, reasserting the argument
that because Best Buy never refunded the sales tax to the customers
who paid the tax as required by Section 111.104(f), the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Assignees' suit.
The Appellate Court conclude that the Assignees have pled facts
that would establish standing based on Best Buy's being personally
aggrieved or that there is any evidence in the record of a personal
injury to Best Buy. As Best Buy merely collected the sales tax
from the customers, "holding that money in trust for the State,"
and then remitted the sales tax to the State, Best Buy has not been
personally aggrieved unless it has refunded at least some of the
sales tax to the customers. And after reviewing the entire record,
the undisputed evidence shows that Best Buy has not been personally
aggrieved. The Agreed Order states that the Assignees accepted the
assignment of Best Buy's right to bring a tax refund suit "in lieu
of any sales tax refund paid directly by Best Buy."
The Assignees argue that "under the statute governing taxes, Best
Buy need not be personally aggrieved to pursue its refund; it need
only be a tax permitted seller." But, the Appellate Court opines
that the Texas Supreme Court has held that the Legislature cannot
set a "lower" standard "than that set by the general doctrine of
standing" because "courts' constitutional jurisdiction cannot be
enlarged by statute." Thus, whether Best Buy has statutory
standing does not resolve the issue of whether it has
constitutional standing.
The Appellate Court recognizes the implications of its holding:
Best Buy has not been personally injured and therefore does not
have constitutional standing until it has refunded at least some of
the taxes to its customers, but the Texas Tax Code permits it as
the person who "directly" paid the sales taxes to the State to file
a tax refund claim (although it cannot recover until it has
refunded all taxes and interests); the Assignees have alleged
individual injuries that potentially could be redressed by a tax
refund, but the Texas Tax Code prohibits a tax refund claim in
their individual capacities when they did not "directly" pay the
sales tax to the State; and the Texas Tax Code permits Best Buy to
assign its claims to the Assignees, but the Assignees may rely only
on an injury to Best Buy to establish standing.
The Legislature chose to amend Section 111.104(b) to permit the
filing of a tax refund claim by a person who "directly" paid the
tax to the State but not by a person who paid sales tax to a vendor
who remitted the tax to the State. It is not the Appellate Court's
province to evaluate the wisdom of the Legislature's choice in
enacting policies; its duty is to apply the law as written. As the
law is currently written and given the constitutional standing
requirements to bring suit, the Appellate Court cannot conclude on
this record that the Assignees have constitutional standing as Best
Buy's assignees to bring Best Buy's tax refund claim.
For these reasons, it overrules the Assignees' first issue.
Because this issue is dispositive of the appeal, the Appellate
Court does not consider the Assignees' other issues.
In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court concludes that Best
Buy lacks standing to bring its tax refund suit -- and accordingly,
that the Assignees lack standing to bring suit in its place. It
affirms the trial court's judgment granting the Comptroller's plea
to the jurisdiction and dismissing the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/8kdwffas from Leagle.com.
TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Bradley Sues Over Mislabeled Flushable Wipes
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLEY BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 7:21-cv-03303 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants mislabeled the TopCare Flushable Wipes as flushable.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the TopCare Flushable
Wipes are not flushable, in that they do not break apart or
disperse in a reasonable period of time after flushing, resulting
in clogs or other sewage damage.
The complaint further asserts that mislabeling of the TopCare
Flushable Wipes renders the product completely worthless. There is
no value to consumers for purportedly "flushable" wipes that are
not actually flushable. Nevertheless, TopCare Flushable Wipes are
labeled and sold as an alternative to toilet paper, and they
command a significant price premium over non-flushable wipes and
traditional toilet paper, the suit added.
Topco Associates, LLC operates as a strategic sourcing company. The
Company provides procurement, quality assurance, packaging, and
other services for its food industry member-owners and customers.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com
-and-
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
TRAVELERS HOME: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC A/A/O JORDAN RIMERT, v. THE TRAVELERS
HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 124039881 (Fla. Cir.,
Hillsborough Cty., March 30, 2021) is an action asserting a class
action claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure and Florida Statutes.
The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the statutory interest
required by Florida Statutes section 627.736(4)(d) because the
Defendant did not calculate interest in accordance with Florida
Statutes section 55.03, which sets a variable interest rate, but
instead paid interest at a fixed rate from the date of notice of
the covered loss.
The Plaintiff contends that for all claims similarly situated,
where the Defendant made an overdue payment to an insured or the
insured's assignee, Defendant calculated and paid interest at a
fixed rate rather than the variable rate set forth in Florida
Statutes.
The Plaintiff is a Florida corporation authorized to do business,
and doing business, in Hillsborough County, Florida.
The Defendant is a foreign for profit corporation authorized to
transact, and transacting, insurance business in Hillsborough
County, Florida, and at all times material hereto provided no-fault
(Personal Injury Protection (PIP)) insurance coverage throughout
the State of Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.
LAWRENCE M. KOPELMAN, P.A.
7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 462-6855
Facsimile:(954) 206-0188
E-mail: LMK@kopelblank.com
- and -
Jeremy Dover, Esq.
DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
91650 SE 17 th Street, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (866) 954-6673
Facsimile: (954) 916-8499
E-mail: PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Manatt Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph E. Laska, Esq., and Nathaniel A. Cohen, Esq., of Manatt,
disclosed that on February 1, 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph
C. Spero entered final judgment in Wit v. United Behavioral Health,
No. 3:14-cv-2346 (N.D. Cal.). Wit is an ERISA class action
concerning the propriety of certain guidelines previously used by
United Behavioral Health (UBH) when adjudicating claims for
outpatient and residential inpatient behavioral health treatments.
The Wit court appointed a special master to oversee UBH's
compliance with the monumental task of "reprocessing" more than
67,000 claims for mental health treatment, as well as with other
detailed declaratory and injunctive remedies. This "Health Update"
reviews developments in the Wit litigation and discusses
implications of the court's remedies order for health plans,
insurers and attorneys advising those entities.
UBH sought a stay pending appeal of the reprocessing remedy, which
the district court denied. But on February 12, 2021, the Ninth
Circuit stayed the reprocessing remedy pending UBH's
long-anticipated appeal of the numerous adverse rulings in Wit.
The Wit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
As a reminder, on March 5, 2019, following a ten-day bench trial,
the Wit court issued a 106-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law (FFCL) addressing certain specific level of care guidelines
used at the time by UBH when assessing the medical necessity of
outpatient and residential inpatient mental health and substance
use disorder treatment. Based on testimony from two of plaintiffs'
retained experts and UBH's in-house experts, the court undertook to
define eight specific "generally accepted standards of care" and
found that UBH's guidelines fell short of each purported standard.
See Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2019 WL 1033730, at *17-40
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019). The Wit FFCL left open the issue of the
appropriate remedy in light of UBH's prior adjudication of tens of
thousands of behavioral health claims under the guidelines the
court deemed deficient. The court ordered further briefing
addressing remedies issues.
The Wit Remedies Order
On November 3, 2020, the Wit court issued a remedies order
directing the following categories of sweeping relief against UBH.
Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2020 WL 6479273 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3,
2020) (Remedies Order).
1. Declaratory judgment
First, the court entered a detailed declaratory judgment stating
that (1) the UBH guidelines at issue fell short of all eight
generally accepted standards of care articulated in the court's
FFCL; (2) as a result, each of UBH's adverse benefit determinations
at issue in the case was "wrongful and made in violation of plan
terms and ERISA"; (3) the UBH guidelines "deviate[d] . . . in a
multitude of ways" from criteria published by the American Society
for Addiction Medicine (ASAM); (4) UBH violated Illinois,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Texas state laws through its use of
the guidelines over various periods; and (5) UBH violated ERISA
fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B),
and (a)(1)(D) "when it developed, revised and applied the
Guidelines." Remedies Order at *48-50.
2. Permanent injunction
The court also issued a permanent injunction strictly governing
UBH's behavioral health coverage determinations over a ten-year
period -- and in some aspects, apparently indefinitely. The
Remedies Order states that the court will retain jurisdiction over
the action for the duration of the injunction. Id. at *54-57.
Under the Remedies Order, UBH is permanently enjoined from using
any of the specific guidelines judged inadequate in the declaratory
judgment when determining whether residential mental health
treatment services are consistent with generally accepted standards
of care and therefore covered under the plan. Id. at *54. More
broadly, UBH is also permanently enjoined from using any guidelines
that apply any of a long list of mandatory prerequisites for
coverage detailed in a joint "consolidated claims chart" filed in
the Wit litigation. See id. These coverage criteria prohibited
under the injunction generally fall into the following categories
as characterized by the Wit plaintiffs: overemphasis on acuity;
failure to consider effective treatment of co-occurring conditions;
drive toward lower levels of care rather than "erring on the side
of caution"; preclusion of coverage for treatment to maintain a
level of function; lack of motivation as grounds for denying
coverage; and "overbroad" definitions of custodial care and "overly
narrow" views of improvement and active treatment. See Consolidated
Claims Chart p. 7, ECF No. 404-2 (Feb. 12, 2018), Wit v. United
Behavioral Health, No. 3:14-cv-2346 (N.D. Cal.).
The court further ordered UBH, for a ten-year period, to "make any
and all coverage-related determinations under ERISA-governed plans
about whether services are consistent with generally accepted
standards of care according to criteria that are consistent with
generally accepted standards of care, as established in [the
court's] FFCL, and the requirements of any applicable state law."
Remedies Order at *54 (emphasis added). UBH must use specific sets
of criteria when adjudicating mental health claims for individuals,
based on the individual's age: specific criteria for adults, for
children and adolescents ages 6-18, and for children age 5 or
younger. Id. at *55.
The injunction also requires UBH to develop and implement two
training programs for care advocates, peer reviewers, external
clinical consultants, and other personnel under the supervision of
a special master. First, UBH must establish a training program
addressing its implementation and application of the newly required
coverage criteria. Second, UBH must establish a training program,
including for senior and executive management, on UBH's "duties
under ERISA, including what it means to be an ERISA fiduciary and
to administer benefit plans solely in the interests of participants
and beneficiaries, as well as the need to comply with plan terms."
See id. at *55-56.
3. Reprocessing order
The remedies order also mandates an unprecedented "reprocessing"
remand to UBH as claims administrator. Under the order, UBH must
reprocess the full scope of over 67,000 benefits determinations for
the classes "in a manner consistent with" the court's FFCL and
remedies order, at UBH's expense. Id. at *51.
The court's reprocessing order prescribes the processes UBH must
apply on remand. UBH must allow for class members and their
providers to supplement the administrative record at will with
additional clinical and billing information supporting the claim,
and must affirmatively contact all class members who do not provide
that information within 90 days of notice from the class
administrator. UBH must also apply specific level of care criteria
on remand, consistent with the permanent injunction. Id. at
*51-52.
The reprocessing order also requires that any new determination by
UBH to deny coverage in full or in part be considered an initial
adverse benefit determination under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1, such
that all administrative appeal remedies under the plan will be
available. And any adverse determination on remand must include
"specific and detailed findings supporting the determination,
including citations to the clinical evidence and the specific
provisions of the applicable criteria on which UBH's conclusion is
based." Id. at *53.
Even if UBH approves a claim on remand, it must still provide its
"specific and detailed findings" in its notification to the class
member. See id. UBH may not offset the benefits that it calculates
are due to the class member against any benefits previously paid to
the class member or the relevant provider in connection with other
services. In calculating the amount of benefit owed, UBH "shall
include benefits owed for all services the class member received at
the level of care at issue in the [remanded determination] that UBH
finds are consistent with the criteria [mandated in the remedies
order], regardless of whether the class member [previously]
submitted a post-service claim for them. . . ." Id.
Once UBH completes all reprocessing, it must provide a
certification and report to the court detailing the total number of
reprocessed requests by level of care, the number of class members
whose requests were denied on remand, the number reversed on
remand, the number receiving a benefit payment following
reprocessing, and "the lowest, highest, median, and average amount
of the payments, by level of care." Id. at *54.
4. Special master
Finally, the Remedies Order calls for the appointment of a special
master "to serve as an independent monitor to oversee and verify
UBH's compliance with [the Remedies Order]." Id. at *56. On January
27, 2021, the court appointed Douglas R. Young of Farella Braun +
Martel LLP as special master. The special master issued his first
report on March 29, 2021, addressing the status of UBH's
implementation of the coverage standards and training programs
required by the Remedies Order.
The Ninth Circuit Stays Reprocessing Pending Appeal
Immediately after the Remedies Order was issued, UBH moved the
district court to stay only the reprocessing remedy pending appeal
to the Ninth Circuit. On December 28, 2020, the district court
denied even this limited stay. The court observed, however, that
neither side had demonstrated any compelling public interest
bearing on a stay of the reprocessing remedy; the court also
acknowledged that some of its rulings involve issues of first
impression and raise "thorny" legal questions.
UBH then moved the Ninth Circuit for a similar stay of the
reprocessing remedy. UBH argued, among other things, that a stay
was warranted because otherwise UBH would be required to complete
reprocessing before any appellate merits review of the novel
liability and remedies findings in the district court's orders. UBH
also highlighted that it was not seeking a stay of any
forward-looking remedy, such as the injunction governing UBH's
current and future benefit decisions, and that the district court's
award of pre- and post-judgment interest mitigated any impact of
delayed recovery of benefits after reprocessing.
On February 1, 2021, the Wit court entered a final judgment
incorporating all of the substantive rulings in the Remedies Order.
Wit, ECF No. 531. Then, in a concise order entered on February 12,
2021, the Ninth Circuit granted UBH's motion for a stay of the
district court's reprocessing order pending appeal.
Analysis
The Wit appeal is expected to address, among other matters,
important issues bearing on the scope of equitable remedies
available under ERISA—particularly the propriety of mandated
class-wide "reprocessing."
No federal appeals court has recognized the type of reprocessing
ordered in Wit on a class basis under ERISA. In ordering
reprocessing, the Wit court relied on Saffle v. Sierra Pac. Power
Co. Bargaining Unit Long Term Disability Income Plan, 85 F.3d 455,
458-60 (9th Cir. 1996). See Remedies Order at *23, *30. In Saffle,
the Ninth Circuit ordered remand of only an individual ERISA
benefit claim to the administrator for reprocessing. See Saffle, 85
F.3d at 457-58, 460-61. The Wit court's extrapolation of the
individual remedy ordered in Saffle to the diverse class claims at
issue in Wit may be a key issue litigated on appeal. While
plaintiffs' attorneys in other actions have sought reprocessing
remedies inspired by Wit, to date no court has relied on the Wit
Remedies Order as authority for reprocessing.
Courts have, however, addressed efforts by the plaintiffs' bar to
expand into other contexts the Wit court's finding that certain UBH
coverage guidelines deviated from generally accepted standards of
care. Several courts have declined to "extend the factual findings
of Wit" to other ERISA claims involving other coverage guidelines,
where the court "does not have before it the kind of expert
testimony and other evidence necessary to decide whether these
guidelines, in the context of this Plan, are improper." See Josef
K. v. California Physicians' Serv., 477 F. Supp. 3d 886, 897 (N.D.
Cal. 2020) (emphasis in original); see also Andrew C. v. Oracle Am.
Inc. Flexible Benefit Plan, 474 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1081 (N.D. Cal.
2020); Julie L. v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 3d 38,
48 n.4 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). Any reversal or modification of the Wit
court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to the UBH
coverage guidelines or as to the generally accepted standards of
care among practitioners could have wide-ranging effects in other
actions challenging behavioral health coverage guidelines.
Conclusion
The Wit Remedies Order and other rulings in the litigation are
far-reaching. If upheld, the litigation will likely have
significant impacts beyond the parties involved. Practitioners,
health plans and health insurers would be wise to track UBH's
long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit of all adverse rulings in
Wit. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Colorado Woman Joins Title IX Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Hernadez, writing for Denver Post, reports that a
Longmont woman and former Colorado Christian University student is
now part of a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of
Education, which asks the agency to better protect LGBTQ students
at taxpayer-funded, religiously affiliated educational
institutions.
Journey Mueller, 21, previously spoke to The Denver Post about
harrowing accounts of conversion therapy she said she experienced
at Colorado Christian University in Lakewood.
A spokesperson for Colorado Christian University did not
immediately return a request for comment on April 6.
There are 33 plaintiffs from across the country, Mueller included,
who allege similar experiences at their institutions.
"I chose to be a part of this because it shakes me to my core to
know that there are so many students in this nation who are legally
being mistreated, discriminated against, bullied, abused, expelled,
and traumatized by schools that they trusted to provide them with a
safe education," Mueller wrote in a Facebook. "I know that there
have been countless students before me who have gone through
similar experiences and countless students that are going through
it as you're reading this. Young lives are being altered in very
drastic, preventable ways. This is not OK."
The lawsuit asks the Department of Education to overturn a rule
allowing religious institutions to inform the department they are
claiming a religious exemption to Title IX, the federal civil
rights law intended to protect people from discrimination based on
sex in education programs or activities that receive federal
money.
"There's a statutory exemption to claim even if they are violating
the law, even if they are causing severe harms, they are allowed to
do that if they're doing it based on their religious beliefs," said
attorney Paul Southwick, who is part of the class-action suit's
legal team.
In a statement to the Post, the U.S. Department of Education said
the president's recent executive order reads: ‘it is the policy
of my Administration that all students should be guaranteed an
educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of
sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment,
which encompasses sexual violence, and including discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.'"
Southwick said the religious exemption was unconstitutional because
it violated the separation of church and state because it allows
"federally funded schools to practice discrimination using taxpayer
dollars."
Southwick added that CCU is not a "truly private" institution
because it receives funding from the federal government through
federal loan programs.
Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors went into effect in
2019. The ban, which prohibits a state-licensed medical or mental
health care provider from engaging in counseling with the goal of
changing a patient's sexual orientation or gender identity, would
not have protected Mueller because the law only applies to people
under the age of 18 and does not include pastoral counseling.
In the new lawsuit and previous interviews with The Denver Post,
Mueller described being outed to CCU administration after
confessing to her college roommates that she was questioning her
sexuality. The administration offered her a choice to renounce her
behavior and leave the school or renounce her behavior and undergo
a university counseling program intended to make her identify as
heterosexual or leave the school immediately, she said.
After undergoing the university-mandated counseling, Mueller said
her mental health diminished to a point that she needed to leave
the institution and come out to her family.
"I look back at journal entries from this time, and I am moved by
the struggle and pain that I was facing," Mueller said. "There are
several entries where on one page, I cry to God, committing to
follow the rules of my program and end things with my newfound
relationship. On the next, I write that the feelings I was
experiencing were like none I had felt before, and wondered how I
could deny myself from feeling so alive?"
Mueller now feels empowered sharing her story and finding community
among those who have faced similar hardships.
"For the first time in a long time, I'm growing to love who I am,"
Mueller said. "Every day, I choose to keep moving forward. I can
confidently say that I am a proud, strong, brave, resilient, and
valid lesbian woman." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Eastern University Students Join Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Faith Millender, writing for The Waltonian, reports that a recent
survey by College Pulse and the Religious Exemption Accountability
Project (REAP) detailed the harsh realities of LGBTQ+ students at
Christian colleges. According to this survey, queer students at
Christian universities are more likely to face harassment,
isolation, and other adverse events, all of which create starkly
different mental health outcomes than those of their
cisgender-heterosexual peers.
The report was conducted between January 28 and February 6, 2021 on
3,000 LGBTQ+ students enrolled in four-year degree programs at
Christian colleges and universities. Findings demonstrate that 12%
of students identify as non-heterosexual, 2% of students identify
as a gender minority, and most of these sexual and gender minority
students are closeted.
The report details responses from queer students at Christian
colleges, most of which are members of the Council for Christian
Colleges & Universities (CCCU). Sexual minority students were three
times more likely to report depression and anxiety, and just as
likely to have seriously considered suicide.
Gender-nonconforming students are at an even higher risk; on
average, gender minority students experience double the number of
adverse experiences, are seven times more likely to experience
sexual assault, and 22% have reported bullying. Nearly half (47%)
of gender minority students at these Christian universities
reported feeling they do not belong on their campus, compared to
29% of sexual minority students, and 17% of straight students.
These realities contribute to vastly different collegiate and
mental health experiences for queer students compared to straight
students.
This survey was commissioned by the REAP, an organization dedicated
to advocating for the empowerment of queer students at
taxpayer-funded religious colleges and universities. REAP is led by
Director Paul Southwick, a queer lawyer who attended a Christian
University and represents LGBTQ+ students, children, and employees
in civil rights matters.
"This discrimination and abuse is funded by taxpayers. These
findings should serve as a wake-up call for all higher education
stakeholders to address the ongoing abuse taking place at publicly
funded institutions," said Southwick. He also explained that many
Christian schools, while private, still receive federal funding in
the form of grants and student financial aid.
LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections in education were greatly
expanded under Title IX during the Obama administration and the
Biden
administration's recent order to federally protect sexual
orientation has put this issue under increased scrutiny. However,
private colleges that receive federal funding can still claim an
exemption on religious grounds. This poses a concerning fate for
queer students at Christian universities and holds implications for
our own private Christian university.
Eastern University receives funding from the CCCU as well as the
federal government. Eastern has very unclear narratives for queer
students who attend the university, as well as for its faculty and
staff members. Our queer students are not exempt from the
statistics revealed by this report and are not fully protected by
our student codes of conduct. Though students at Eastern University
are permitted to be out on campus, the university's stance on the
LGBTQ+ issue is ambiguous. Class after class of students have
raised concerns on the implications of this stance for the safety
and well-being of queer students attending Eastern University.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Department of
Education over this rights violation, including students from
Eastern University and associated colleges.
For more information about the Religious Exemption Accountability
Project, or to join the fight, visit reap.org. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Immigration Detainees' Class Action v. ICE Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Robinson, writing for Dartmouth Week, reports that a landmark
class action lawsuit settled has secured the continued release of
federal immigrations detainees from the Bristol County Sheriff's
Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Faunce
Corner Road.
Savino v. Souza, filed in March 2020, claimed that detainees in the
facility were not adequately protected from Covid.
It resulted in a federal judge last year ordering the preliminary
release of dozens of detainees while barring ICE from admitting new
people to detention without court approval.
Others paid bond, obtained relief in their immigration cases, or
were voluntarily released, ultimately reducing the number people
held in the facility from 148 to seven.
If approved by a judge, the settlement would allow released
detainees to remain quarantined at home. It would also provide the
remaining seven detainees the option of transferring to another New
England ICE facility.
The class action suit is believed to be the first lawsuit brought
during the pandemic on behalf of all ICE detainees at a facility,
as opposed to only individuals with certain medical risk factors,
according to Lawyers for Civil Rights.
The organization brought the lawsuit in conjunction with law firm
WilmerHale, civil rights group Rights Behind Bars, and a team of
students from the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at
Yale Law School.
In a press release, the group called the effort "enormously
successful at protecting class members' health and well-being."
WIRAC students said that all of the work for the plaintiffs was
done pro bono.
"The courage of [detainees] who spoke out about the danger they
faced despite the risk of retaliation made this case possible,"
noted Yale Law student Fernando Quiroz, who worked on the case.
"This case served as a template for similar facility-wide suits
around the country that exposed ICE's widespread mismanagement of
the Covid-19 pandemic."
"While Bristol is notorious for its poor conditions and officials'
civil rights abuses against individuals detained there, ICE's
failure to ensure the basic safety of those it incarcerates is
certainly not limited to [Bristol County House of Correction] -- or
to the pandemic," Quiroz stated, referring to a report by
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey that found the
Sheriff's Office violated detainees' civil rights in using
excessive force in an altercation at the facility on May 1, 2020.
Spokesperson for the Sheriff's Office Jonathan Darling commented,
"The settlement recognizes that the [Sheriff's Office] did nothing
wrong and sets the stage for the ICE building to repopulate at full
capacity."
The agreement notes that the Sheriff's Office and ICE "specifically
disclaim any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever," but are settling
the lawsuit "to avoid further protracted litigation."
"At the time this lawsuit was filed, no inmate or detainee had
contracted Covid," the Sheriff's Office statement read. "Since the
pandemic [began] in early March of last year, the Bristol County
correctional facilities had complied meticulously with every
directive and/or recommendation set out by the CDC or the
Massachusetts Department of Public Health regarding disinfection
and Covid prevention."
Once the settlement agreement is approved following a fairness
hearing on May 3, the order preventing ICE from admitting new
detainees to the facility is set to expire.
But Quiroz stated the students' belief that repopulating the
facility "would set the stage for further harm to detained
individuals and preserve the status quo of needless cruelty in
immigration detention."
He added that the availability of the Covid vaccine "does not
preclude similar litigation in the future," noting that the effort
to protect detained individuals' constitutional rights is not
limited to the pandemic.
According to Quiroz, many former detainees are also pursuing
individual administrative damages claims from the facility,
"especially those who were harmed" by sheriff's officers during the
May 1 incident.
Meanwhile Darling noted in the statement that "Bristol County
remains proud of its efforts against the Covid epidemic and
commends its officers and staff for their great efforts which
resulted in the minimal effect Covid has had on the prisoners and
staff." [GN]
VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lotshaw, writing for Vail Daily, reports that attorneys
representing Vail Resorts employees who claim the company has
systematically violated federal and state labor laws are arguing
that their proposed class-action lawsuit should proceed not only
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, but under the labor
laws of Colorado and eight other states where the company operates
its ski resorts.
Vail Resorts has argued that all claims outside of Colorado or the
Fair Labor Standards Act should be dismissed.
The pending lawsuit was filed Dec. 3 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and
Mark Molina, who are current or former employees at Beaver Creek
Resort.
The lawsuit alleges Vail Resorts has for years failed to pay Quint,
Linn and Molina -- along with thousands of other seasonal
employees, including ski and snowboard instructors, ticket scanners
and lift operators -- for their entire shifts, for "off the clock"
work the company requires or accepts, for overtime, for training or
for the use, purchase or maintenance of ski and snowboard equipment
and cellphones the company requires workers to have.
California-based attorneys Edward P. Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston
filed the lawsuit on behalf of the three employees. They have
declined to comment on the case.
The lawsuit seeks collective action status under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and class-action status under the wage and
labor laws of Colorado and eight other states: California,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Vermont, Washington and
Wisconsin. It preliminarily estimates damages at $100 million to
$150 million.
Twelve other people have since signed consent forms with Dietrich
and Galdston to opt into the lawsuit against the company, all
alleging to have worked for Vail Resorts and alleging they, too,
were not properly paid for all time worked or for overtime or
expenses, according to court records.
In February, Vail Resorts filed its first reply to the lawsuit, a
motion for partial dismissal. The company has not responded to
requests for comment.
The company -- which operates 34 ski resorts in North America,
including Keystone Resort and Breckenridge Ski Resort in Summit
County -- in its motion argued that Quint, Linn and Molina and the
then-10 other people who have consented to join the lawsuit lack
standing to pursue state labor law claims on behalf of themselves
or other employees of Vail Resorts, arguing that all of the state
labor law claims outside Colorado should be dismissed.
"By their own allegations, plaintiffs never worked in those states
and have not established they were otherwise subject to the laws of
those states," states the company's motion, filed by the law firm
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. "As several cases from
this district hold, plaintiffs have no injury under the laws of
those states and lack standing to assert claims under those laws on
behalf of themselves or a putative class."
"Vail (Resorts) is wrong," Dietrich and Galdston argue in their
response to the company's motion, filed on April 2. The attorneys
cite several appellate court cases, "which Vail ignores," arguing
those higher court rulings "make clear that named plaintiffs do not
have to live or work in a state to have standing to assert state
law claims on behalf of absent class members who live in those
states."
Additionally, a federal court can assert "supplemental
jurisdiction" over state law claims the court would not otherwise
have subject matter jurisdiction to hear, so long as the claims are
all part of the same case or controversy as the claim over which
the court has original jurisdiction. "Here the complaint alleges
that all state law claims arise from the same Vail policies and
practices and are part of the same case," the response states.
According to a March 25 scheduling order prepared for the case,
Vail Resorts has until April 23 to reply again in support of its
motion for a partial dismissal of the lawsuit's claims in states
outside of Colorado.
Meanwhile, the parties in coming weeks are expected to start filing
motions for or against requiring Vail Resorts to provide employee
contact information for the attorneys to start sending notices of a
conditional collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
though any potential class action would still have to be certified
by the court. [GN]
VALVE CORP: CD Projekt RED Removed From Steam Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Strickland, writing for TweakTown, reports that CD Projekt
RED is no longer being accused as part of the anti-trust lawsuit
against Valve, the company announced.
In January, five gamers banded together and sued Valve for
allegedly creating an environment that suppresses competition. The
allegations surround a specific clause in the contracts that
developers sign to put their games on Steam--the Most Favored
Nations clause, which essentially requires devs to sell their games
for the same price as they do on Steam. If a game is $19.99 on
Steam, it needs to be $19.99 on PS4 and Xbox One. The suit alleges
that the MFN clause restricts other storefronts and inhibits
competition:
"If this market functioned properly-that is, if the Steam MFN did
not exist and platforms were able to compete on price-platforms
competing with Steam would be able to provide the same (or higher)
margins to game developers while simultaneously providing lower
prices to consumers," the lawsuit says.
A number of developers and publishers were lumped into the suit,
including CD Projekt RED. Now the beleaguered Cyberpunk 2077
developer confirms they've been removed from the suit entirely.
Read more:
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78681/cd-projekt-has-been-removed-from-steam-anti-trust-lawsuit-allegations/index.html
There's no updates on the substantial class action securities fraud
lawsuits that CD Projekt faces for Cyberpunk 2077, however.
In relation to Current Report no. 8/2021 of 29 January 2021, as an
update to information concerning the filing of a class action
lawsuit in the USA concerning potential infringement of US
antitrust regulations by allegedly acceding to a "Most Favored
Nations" clause in distribution agreements concluded with Valve
Corporation, the Management Board of CD PROJEKT S.A. hereby
announces that according to the plaintiffs' filing on 8 April 2021,
the claims directed against CD PROJEKT S.A. and CD PROJEKT Inc.
have been withdrawn, and, consequently, these entities have been
excluded from the ongoing lawsuit. [GN]
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Benjamin Sues Over 90.5% Drop of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY BENJAMIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANSHU BHATNAGAR, CHRISTOPHER
CUTCHENS, and VERUS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-01001-PWG (D. Md., April 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements about Verus International's business
and operations to artificially inflate the prices of Verus
securities between June 17, 2019 through October 8, 2020.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclosed that: (i) Verus lacked the
requisite resources, infrastructure and/or expertise to exploit its
Big League Foods brand and its MLB license; (ii) the company issues
in production ramp-up were not fully resolved to enable the company
to fulfill customer orders; (iii) as a result, the company's
prospects and outlook were not as represented; (iv) the company's
internal controls for financial reporting and accounting were not
sufficient with specific respect to stock-based compensation and
classification of equity instruments; and (v) as a result, the
company's financial results, outlook and prospects were materially
worse than represented, the suit says.
Furthermore, the Defendants made misleading statements about Verus'
acquisition transaction with ZC Top Apparel Manufacturing (ZTAM)
and failed to disclose that: (i) Verus' controlling interest was
never officially registered in the Philippines; (ii) Verus lacked
the requisite resources, infrastructure, and/or expertise to unlock
the capacity of ZTAM's facilities, to the extent it existed; (iii)
Verus' international trade experience was useless without a
product; and (iv) even in the most optimistic case, the ZTAM
transaction was unlikely to have an immediate financial impact on
Verus. When the truth emerged, Verus' stock price closed at just
$0.002 per share, a total decline 90.5% from when Verus announced
its controlling interest in ZTAM, added the suit.
Verus International, Inc. is a supplier of consumer food products,
headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John B. Isbister, Esq.
Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
One East Pratt Street, Suite 901
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 752-9700
Facsimile: (470) 727-5460
E-mail: jisbister@tydings.com
dkatz@tydings.com
- and –
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
donovan@whafh.com
VMK INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SMITH individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. VMK, INC. d/b/a PURPLE LOTUS, a California limited
liability Company, Case No. 5:21-cv-02200 (N.D. Calif., March 30,
2021) is an action against VMK Inc. to secure redress for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is a cannabis dispensary. To promote its services,
Defendant allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Joshua Moyer, Esq.
SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A.
401 W. A street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com
VROOM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 21 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
Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) from November
11, 2020, through March 3, 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 Vroom securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Vroom 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:(1) that Vroom had not demonstrated
that it was able to control and scale growth in respect to its
salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2) that, as a
result, the Company was forced to discount aged inventory to move
through its retail channels or liquidated in its wholesale
channels; (3) that, as a result, the ecommerce gross profit per
unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press
release. Therein, the Company reported that fourth quarter
"Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878,
driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by
improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per
unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et
loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per
share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 21, 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 does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Vroom securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/vroominc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-383/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]
VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRM) ("Vroom") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Vroom securities between
June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Vroom securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 21,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/vroom-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=vroom
Vroom operates an end-to-end ecommerce platform that sells fully
reconditioned vehicles.
The Class Period commences on June 9, 2020, when Vroom filed the
prospectus for its initial public offering ("IPO") with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on a Form 424B4, which
incorporated and formed part of the registration statement for the
initial public offering.
According to the complaint, on March 3, 2021, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. Therein, Vroom
reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per
unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales
margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and
reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the
fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million."
During the accompanying earnings call, the defendants revealed that
Vroom was suffering from serious sales and support bottlenecks
which had severely constrained Vroom's growth and profits per
vehicle.
Following this news, Vroom's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or
27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Vroom was unable to sell a significant portion
of existing inventory as a result of inadequate sales personnel and
overreliance on third-party sales support; (ii) Vroom's lack of
adequate sales and support staff had resulted in severe growth
constraints, degraded customer experience, lost sales opportunities
and a greater than 10% increase in average days to sale for Vroom
products; (iii) Vroom had been forced to mark down and liquidate
existing inventory at fire sale prices; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Vroom's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Vroom investors may, no later than May 21, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
WASTE CONNECTIONS: Judge Dismisses Nuisance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Waste360 reports that a judge has dismissed with prejudice a
nuisance class action lawsuit filed in federal court in
Pennsylvania against Waste Connections. The lead plaintiff in the
case, Ms. Robin Baptiste, had claimed she was bothered by odors
that came from the company's Bethlehem Landfill, but during a March
2021 deposition, she admitted that the odor was from the Bethlehem
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The decision by Judge Chad F. Kenney to
dismiss the case with prejudice bars the plaintiffs from filing a
future lawsuit against the defendant on the same issue.
"We applaud Judge Kenney's decision to toss out this lawsuit," said
National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) President and CEO
Darrell Smith. "Landfills are highly engineered facilities that
comply with stringent local, state and federal regulations."
"This is an important reminder to NWRA members defending nuisance
and other mass tort claims to always test the evidence," stated
NWRA Chief Counsel & Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
Jim Riley. "Members of the business community often will agree to
pay large settlements to plaintiffs' law firms just to make them go
away even if they are not at fault, but this only fuels more
lawsuits. We are putting these firms on notice—not only will the
waste and recycling industry challenge dubious claims when they are
brought, but it will push for sanctions against these firms when
there is evidence they have knowledge that responsibility lies
elsewhere."
In 2019, NWRA provided a strong amicus brief to the Third Circuit
in Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co. supporting Waste
Connections.
The reason for the dismissal was memorialized in the Rule 41
stipulation and reported at 2021 WL 1232779 (E.D. Pa. March 30,
2021). [GN]
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Upholds Attorneys' Fees in Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's award of attorney's fees in the case, In re: WELLS
FARGO & COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. FIRE & POLICE
PENSION ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO; THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT
AND RELIEF SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. EDWARD W. COCHRAN,
Objector-Appellant v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-15898 (9th Cir.).
Objector-Appellant Edward Cochran appeals the district court's
award of attorney's fees in a shareholder derivative action brought
on behalf of Wells Fargo against the company's management. The
district court revised downwards from a 25% benchmark to grant
attorney's fees of 22% ($52 million) after considering the results
achieved, risk and burden endured, and similar cases, then,
performed a lodestar cross-check for reasonableness.
Cochran argues that the district court "erroneously anchored its
fee award to the Circuit's 25% benchmark and the Co-Lead Counsel's
28.33% request." Instead, he says the court should have used a
lower percentage as a benchmark, such as around 11% or 17.5%.
The Ninth Circuit notes that the district court is required only to
reach a reasonable percentage after "considering all the
circumstances of the case." While it has repeatedly held the 25%
benchmark "is of little assistance in megafund cases," such as this
one, the Ninth Circuit has required a different benchmark in only
one instance, citing In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust
Litig., 959 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2020). When counsel "proposes
a fee structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid," not a
percentage benchmark, "becomes the starting point for determining a
reasonable fee." But there were no fee structures proposed here.
Cochran bases his 11% benchmark on a 2016 document in an unrelated
case that purportedly showed how much the rejected counsel
candidate charged ex ante in 2005 in yet another case. Because
there was no competitive fee-based bidding process, Optical Disk
Drive's benchmark requirement does not apply here and Cochran's 11%
benchmark is inapt.
Cochran proposes a 17.5% benchmark based on a study reflecting that
the mean percentage of recovery in connection with settlements of
this size is 17.9%. But the district court had already reasonably
considered this study (and others) in analyzing the circumstances
and found they "weighed in favor of" a slightly reduced award.
The district court considered the circumstances -- including the
results achieved, the risk and burden endured, and similar cases --
in reaching a reasonable percentage. The Ninth Circuit has
affirmed fee awards totaling a far greater percentage of the
recovery than the fees in the instant case, including fees of
Circuit 28% and 33%. It finds no abuse of discretion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3fhnp7ck from Leagle.com.
WELLS FARGO: Stoff Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Stoff, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 37-02020-00020808 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court for Southern District of California on April
22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00793-BEN-KSC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an
American multinational financial services company with corporate
headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters
in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States
and overseas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Brown, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. BROWN
501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Phone: (619) 501-6550
Email: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Esq.
SEVERSON & WERSON
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
Phone: (415) 398-3344
Fax: (415) 956-0439
Email: rss@severson.com
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Files Suit in California Superior Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WESCO Distribution,
Inc. The case is styled as Eric Shadinger, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Wesco
Distribution, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2021-00298583-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April
12, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
WESCO -- https://www.wesco.com/ -- is an industry-leading supply
chain solutions company providing electrical supplies, logistics
expertise and systems capabilities around the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
WESTROCK SERVICES: Savino Sues Over Unpaid OT, BIPA Non-Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTHONY SAVINO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01913 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in New Lenox, Illinois
as an hourly-paid factory worker from approximately April 2016 to
October 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant required him and other
similarly situated hourly-paid factory workers to scan their
fingerprints to clock in and out without obtaining their prior
consent to the collection of their fingerprints. In addition, the
Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent
performing work before their shifts that is an integral and
indispensable to their job duties. As a result, despite working in
excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action complaint on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated factory workers to
recover the full amount of damages from the Defendant, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties available by law, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Westrock is a leading paper and packaging company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (877) 561-0000
E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
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. 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.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
URL: https://www.bernlieb.com [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ:WKHS) ("Workhorse") that
a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Workhorse securities between July
7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Workhorse
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 7, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484)
270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail atinfo@ktmc.com;
or click
https://www.ktmc.com/workhorse-group-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=workhorse.
Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and
manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United
States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation
Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear
acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package
delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the
NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3
billion.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants continued to indicate that Workhorse would secure the
NGDV contract.
However, on February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS
issued a press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards
Contract to Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar Modernization of Postal
Delivery Vehicle Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh
Defense - not Workhorse - had won the lucrative NGDV contract.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping that USPS was going
to select an electric vehicle as its NGDV, and had no assurance or
indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse 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, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
Workhorse investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Workhorse Group Inc. 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-02207, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Workhorse securities between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 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 Workhorse securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and
manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles.
In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the
USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a
competitive multiyear acquisition process for replacing
approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles.
Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the NGDV contract,
which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3 billion.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was merely hoping
that the 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; (ii) 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 (iii) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
On February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a
press release entitled "U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to
Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar Modernization of Postal Delivery
Vehicle Fleet." The press release announced that Oshkosh Defense,
not Workhorse, had won the lucrative NGDV contract.
On this news, securities of Workhorse fell $14.87 per share, or
47%, to close at $16.47 per share in the regular session on
February 23, 2021. The price continued to drop in after-hours
trading and opened on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07 per
share, a fall of over 50% from the previous open, damaging
investors.
The New York Times published an article on February 24, 2021,
entitled "Losing Bid for Postal Contract Proves Costly for
Electric-Vehicle Maker." The subtitle read: "Workhorse, a small
truck maker with big ambitions, was counting on the deal for a
surge in revenue. Its shares lost $2 billion in value." The press
release quoted the postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, who said the
USPS's plan called for 10 percent of its new trucks to be electric.
When asked by Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat,
why that figure was not 90 percent, Mr. DeJoy pointed to cost,
stating: "We don't have the three or four extra billion dollars in
our plan right now that it would take to do it[.]"
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
URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN]
YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: NRO RICO Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NRO BOSTON LLC, NRO EDGARTOWN LLC, JASON INDELICATO
and ALICE INDELICATO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL LLC, DAVID GLASS, YITZHAK
STERN, and THE JOHN AND JANE DOE INVESTORS, Case No. 037005/2019,
was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Rockland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on April 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 7:21-cv-03652 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of 18
U.S.C. Sections 1962 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), a claim seeking to vacate a New York
state judgment previously entered against the Plaintiffs, and a
claim under the Massachusetts General Law.
NRO Boston LLC is a women's clothing store in Boston,
Massachusetts.
NRO Edgartown LLC is a fashion store in Edgartown, Massachusetts.
Yellowstone Capital LLC is a financing firm based in New Jersey.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam J. Stein, Esq.
Christopher R. Murray, Esq.
STEIN ADLER DABAH & ZELKOWITZ, LLP
1633 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 867-5620
E-mail: cmurray@steinadlerlaw.com
ZOETIS INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discuses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen J. McConnell, Esq., of Reed Smith, in an article for
Mondaq, reports that in Knapp v. Zoetis Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. 63783
(E.D. Va. March 31, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that
administration of an equine antibiotic caused his horse, Boomer, to
experience "persistent lameness" and permanent damage to the
"musculature in his neck." Boomer was not okay. His condition was
far from stable.
The plaintiff claimed that the manufacturer knew of similar
negative reactions yet failed to supply proper warnings. The
plaintiff's complaint included causes of action for negligence,
failure to warn, defective design and manufacture, and breaches of
various express and implied warranties. The complaint did not
specify under which law the negligence was brought, cited Virginia
law for two of the warranty claims, and pointed to New Jersey for
the rest of the causes of action. The claims under New Jersey law
were styled as a class action.
Boomer and his owner lived in Virginia, while the defendant
manufacturer was a citizen of New Jersey. (Quick: Name a famous
equestrian from New Jersey.) The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss the claims under New Jersey law. It also moved to strike
the class action.
The federal court, sitting in Virginia, applied Virginia choice of
law rules. Virginia applies the lex loci delicti -- the law of the
place of the wrong. In personal injury tort cases, the applicable
law is typically where the plaintiff (or in this case, his
four-legged companion) first became ill. Warranty claims can smell
like both tort and contract claims, but either way, the state where
the injury occurs supplies the operative substantive law. In Knapp,
poor Boomer ingested the drug and suffered injuries in Virginia. In
the race between Virginia law and New Jersey law, Virginia law is
leading by several lengths as we round the last turn.
The plaintiff cited a New Jersey case that considered a claim by a
plaintiff who alleged an injury in Virginia caused by a drug
manufactured by a New Jersey company. But that was a horse of a
different color. The New Jersey court held that New Jersey law
governed the claim for punitive damages. That ruling was based on
New Jersey's "significant relationship" choice of law rule, which
is different from Virginia law. Moreover, even that New Jersey case
ended up applying Virginia law to the substantive claims arising
from the injury in Virginia.
Again, everything of importance in the Knapp case happened in
Virginia, so Virginia's law applied, not the law of New Jersey,
where the defendant had its principal place of business. Giddy up!
What is especially interesting about the Knapp case is that the
plaintiff's attempt to convert his individual dispute into a
nationwide class action under a different state's law failed, with
the action cut back to an individual one under the law of the
plaintiff's state. Choice of law galloped straight into the issue
of standing.
The plaintiff argued that a class action under New Jersey law would
be the "best way to achieve an efficient manner of uniform
redress." Whoa! Efficiency was really a code word for ponying up
big class action fees for plaintiff attorneys. That would be a lot
of hay. But such specious efficiency cannot vault over fundamental
rules of standing.
The Knapp court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert
any action under New Jersey law because the use of the drug and the
injury did not happen in New Jersey. The plaintiff did not allege
an injury in fact occurring under New Jersey law. Consequently, the
plaintiff lacked standing to bring a case on behalf of either
himself or others under New Jersey law. The plaintiff's lack of
standing under New Jersey prompted the Knapp court to say Nay to
the class action alleged under New Jersey law. As far as we are
concerned, that is the main point of the Knapp case.
That is not to say that the state court rulings are devoid of
interest. The Knapp court considered the negligence, implied
warranty, and express warranty claims under Virginia law. The court
concluded that the plaintiff might possibly be able to make out a
claim for breach of an express warranty. But the negligence and
implied warranty claims flunked because the complaint did not
identify any specific defect in the drug at issue. All the
complaint did was say there was a defect. The plaintiff contended
that he did not need to identify a specific defect That was not a
whinnying -- sorry, winning -- argument. The Eastern District of
Virginia has already rejected the argument that a plaintiff need
not identify a product's defects at the pleading stage.
In the end, the plaintiff was left only with a single express
warranty claim under the law of his residence, Virginia. From the
plaintiff lawyer's perspective, seeing a wide-scale class action
cut down to such a small sliver must have seemed like a nightmare.
At a minimum, the result must have produced a long face. [GN]
[*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Actions Continue to Rise
----------------------------------------------------------------
Against the backdrop of a worldwide pandemic and a decline in
overall securities class action filing activity, the number of
securities class action filings involving accounting allegations
increased in 2020 for the third consecutive year, according to a
report released on April7 by Cornerstone Research.
The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2020
Review and Analysis, found that accounting allegations continue to
have a substantial impact on securities class actions. Accounting
allegations were present in more than 30% of all federal securities
class action filings, and accounting cases made up 84% of total
settlement dollars in 2020.
Plaintiffs filed 70 securities class action lawsuits involving
accounting allegations in 2020, up from 67 the previous year and
the second-highest number in the last 10 years.
There were 38 accounting case settlements in 2020, more than the 34
settlements in the previous year but still lower than in the peak
years of 2015 to 2017. The number of accounting case settlements
represented almost 50% of all securities class action settlements
in 2020.
Total accounting case settlement dollars rose to $3.5 billion in
2020, more than triple the total of $932 million in 2019. This
increase was driven by a small number of mega settlements (those
valued at $100 million or higher). The median accounting case
settlement value was $10.8 million, comparable to the median
settlement value of $10.6 million in 2019.
For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the
Disclosure Dollar Loss Index(R) (DDL Index(R)), a measure of market
capitalization losses, reached its highest level in the last 10
years. Market capitalization losses for accounting case filings
were 77% higher than the 2011–2019 annual average DDL for
accounting cases.
Author Commentary
Elaine M. Harwood, Senior Vice President: "Despite the COVID-19
pandemic, accounting class action filings reached their highest
level since 2011. More than one-third of accounting cases filed in
2020 included allegations of improper revenue recognition, nearly
double the proportion in 2019."
Frank T. Mascari, Principal: "The trend of accounting case filings
against larger companies observed in 2019 continued in 2020. The 10
largest issuer defendants accounted for almost 70% of the market
capitalization losses for accounting cases in 2020."
Laura E. Simmons, Senior Advisor: "Accounting issues remain at the
forefront of the largest securities class action settlements, and
recent trends in case filings suggest that is unlikely to change in
the near future."
Highlights
* Defendant firm size, filings: At $1.3 billion, the median
market capitalization of issuer defendants in 2020 was almost 18%
higher than the 2019 median market capitalization of $1.1 billion,
and 56% greater than the 2011–2019 average.
* Defendant firm size, settlements: The median market
capitalization of $934.1 million in accounting case settlements was
41% higher than the average annual median for 2011–2019.
* Dismissals: The first-year dismissal rate of accounting cases
filed in 2020 was 3%, the lowest percentage of current-year
dismissals over the last 10 years.
* Restatements: There were 11 accounting case filings involving
financial statement restatements in 2020, the lowest level in 10
years. In 2020, the proportion of settled accounting cases
involving restatements was also the lowest over the last 10 years.
* Internal control weaknesses: There were 25 accounting case
filings containing an allegation, but no announcement, of internal
control weaknesses, the highest level since 2015. Of the 19
settlements in 2020 that involved a company announcement of an
internal control weakness, 42% also involved a restatement.
* Industry: For the third year in a row, there were as many or
more accounting case filings and accounting case settlements in the
Consumer Non-Cyclical sector (including biotechnology, healthcare,
and pharmaceutical companies) than any other industry sector.
About Accounting Cases
Cases are considered "accounting cases" if they involve allegations
related to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
violations, violations of other reporting standards, auditing
violations, or weaknesses in internal controls over financial
reporting.
This year's report focuses on federal securities class action
filings containing Rule 10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12(a) claims,
previously referred to as "core" filings.
About Cornerstone Research
Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for more than 30 years. The firm has over
700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New
York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.
See Cornerstone Research's website for more information about the
firm's capabilities in economic and financial consulting and expert
testimony. [GN]
[*] Bailey's Travel Urges Agents to Join Insurance Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juliet Dennis, writing for TravelWeekly, reports that Bailey's
Travel is urging agents to get in touch with him in order to take a
class action relating to business interruption insurance.
Owner Chris Bailey had hoped to claim between £200,000 and
£250,000 in lost earnings on his business interruption insurance
following January's Supreme Court ruling in favour of small firms.
The court ordered insurers to pay out business interruption
insurance claims where companies were affected by Covid-19.
Despite the new ruling, Bailey said his claim has once again been
rejected based on the specific wording of his policy, which
referenced a 'notifiable disease manifesting itself at the
premises'.
He said: "I have been told I have to prove that someone contracted
Covid on my premises and got a positive test, then I can make a
claim. I am saying 'at the premises' can mean in the vicinity of
the shop, where Covid exists.
"It is very frustrating. The insurers want to tie you down to the
precise wording of the policy but the Supreme Court said there
should be no reason to prove the existence of Covid-19."
Bailey took out business interruption insurance with Axa through
broker James Hallam. He is currently seeking legal advice but said
a court action would ideally need "another 50 agents" with the same
policy as his to go ahead.
He said: "We are going to pursue this but I need more agents to
join me to take a class action. I want as many as possible to
contact me because it's a cause worth fighting.
"It will be a battle and take time but I believe we will win. I
suspect there could be hundreds of agents who have the same
policy."
Bailey said agencies like his were struggling to survive and
"running out of cash" because they had to keep afloat for more than
12 months without any proper income as a result of the Covid-19
pandemic.
"It's a catastrophe of epic proportions. The reality is that we
will be fighting for the next five years to build our businesses
back to where they were [pre-Covid]," he said. [GN]
[*] Employers Can't Stop Workers to Join Class Suit Under PRO Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Price, writing for Small Business Trends, reports that back in
March, the US House of Representatives passed what's known as the
PRO Act.
While the legislation is gaining notoriety over its content on
unions and employees' right to organize, it also aims to completely
change the job marketplace for freelancers and independent
contractors.
However, the PRO Act faces a major hurdle, or two, in the US
Senate. You can expect to hear more about the PRO Act in the coming
days or weeks now.
Amazon workers voted against unionizing. Now, it appears pro-union
lobbyists will be upping the pressure on Democrats in the Senate to
get the PRO Act to President Joe Biden for his signature.
The only way that may happen is if the Senate votes to end the
filibuster. And right now, that doesn't seem likely.
Regardless, if you're an independent contractor, freelancer, or
small business owner with employees, you'll want to closely follow
this bill as it's debated in the coming weeks. It could have major
implications for all.
The PRO Act's Effect on Small Business, Independent Contractors and
Freelancers
Let's look at what's in the bill and what's been said about it so
far, mostly in debate among the US House of Representatives.
The House of Representatives passed the PRO (or Protecting the
Right to Organize) Act March 9 by a 225-206 vote.
On March 11 the PRO Act (HR842) was received in the Senate and
referred to the committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
(HELP). HR842 will be debated in committee before being presented
to the Senate for vote.
The PRO Act and Independent Contractors
HR842, as it's written now, adopts California's ABC test for
independent contractors. Here's the text for the ABC test:
An individual performing any service shall be considered an
employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an
independent contractor, unless—
(A) The individual is free from control and direction in connection
with the performance of the service, both under the contract for
the performance of service and in fact;
(B) The service is performed outside the usual course of the
business of the employer; and
(C) The individual is customarily engaged in an independently
established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same
nature as that involved in the service performed.
In other words, the PRO Act would change the 1099 classification of
independent contractors. Many people currently working as
freelancers or subcontractors are presently doing work or service
"outside the usual course of business of the employer." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***