/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210707.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, July 7, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 129
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Langevin Says
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Shipman Claims
3M COMPANY: Chambers Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Crider Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Guillen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ACELRX PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ACTION COLLECTION: Maman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
ADVANCE KIDS INC: Buckans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AETNA LIFE: Wants Court to Hear Spinal Surgery Coverage Dispute
AFFECTIONATE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Daywalt Claims
ALASKA: To Begin Gender-Affirming Healthcare Coverage on Medicaid
ALDI INC: Vesota Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
ALYK INC: Faces Manson Suit Over Defective LOLA Tampons
AMAZON.COM INC: Exploiting Consumers by Price Gouging, Suit Says
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Faces Caicedo Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Artificially Inflate Stock Price, Keippel Says
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Supreme Court of Canada Tosses VLT Class Action
AUGUSTA COOPERATIVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Faces Hayes Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BALTIMORE LIFE: Griffin Files Suit in S.D. New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Control CDS Market, State Investment Council Says
BARNES & NOBLE: Consolidated Retailers Putative Class Suit Nixed
BED BATH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
BELMONT PEANUTS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIG SUGAR: Court Upholds Residents' Claims in Pollution Lawsuit
BRIDGESCAPE CAPITAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
BROOKLYN, NY: Homeowners' Civil Rights Class Action Can Proceed
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
CANADA: Ont. Appeal Court Upheld Denial of Class Certification
CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Investigates Securities Class Action Suit
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Building Collapse
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline
CLEANSPARK INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
COLORADO: Inmates' Class Suit Against Governor Can Proceed
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: IPO Documents "Misleading," Asmat Suit Alleges
CST CONSULTANTS: Suit May Help Quebecers Recoup Enrolment Fees
CVS CAREMARK: Fails to Properly Pay Pharmacists, Esfandiari Alleges
CVS PHARMACY: Cleared of US$121M Charges in Fraud Class Action
DR. REDDY'S: Alleged Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Underway
DR. REDDY'S: Awaits Final Approval of Namenda Settlement
DR. REDDY'S: Canadian Consumer Class Suit Underway
DR. REDDY'S: Divalproex Antitrust Class Action Underway
DR. REDDY'S: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 31 Deadline
DRAFTKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 31 Deadline
ENSITE USA: Faces Albert Suit Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' OT
EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Class Action Settlement Approval
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rouse Files FCRA Suit in D. Utah
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Shen May Replead Securities Complaint
FITLIFE BRANDS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FREEDOM CREDIT: Violates Repossession Notice in UCC, Ibeleme Claims
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Hingston Sues Over Drop in Share Price
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bryan Cave Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
GOOGLE LLC: US Judge Affirms Voice Assistant Privacy Class Action
HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Consumer Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to E.D.N.Y.
HILCORP ENERGY: Underpays Gas Royalties, Carl Suit Alleges
HILL TO GROVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Bensalem Sues Over Forced PIP Requirements
HOME POINT: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of August 20 Deadline
HOME POINT: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 20 Deadline
HUMM KOMBUCHA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Battery Defects
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $1.4 Million Fees
JAMES KERR: Mathis Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
JUUL LABS: Agrees to Pay North Carolina to Settle Vaping Lawsuits
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Ferndale School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth in Ill., School Alleges
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
LEMON CREEK: Defendants Appeal Fuel Spill Class Action Decision
LOANCARE LLC: Gross Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
LOS MARIACHIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Suit Says
LOUISIANA STATE: Three New Plaintiffs Added to Title IX Lawsuit
M1 HOLDINGS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says
MADISON SQUARE: Merger Vote Gets Ok From Delaware Ch. Court Judge
MAGELLAN HRSC: Court Issues Opinion on Coffin Transfer Bid Denial
MANGO STAND: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MARYLAND: Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits Pending
MARYLAND: Judge to Issue Decision On Unemployment Class Action
MDL 3000: Court Denies Transfer of Hayes' False Imprisonment Row
MDL 3001: 2 Gambling Apps Cases Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 3002: Accellion Data Breach Disputes Transfer Request Denied
MICHAEL KORS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Manning Appeals Ruling in Putative Class Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Zamora FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
MONTANA SKY: Guy Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: SCOTUS Upheld Rulings in Federal Antitrust Suit
NEUROLOGICAL FITNESS: Court Enters Order for Class Cert. Bids
OBI SEAFOODS: Paunovic FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
OCUGEN INC: Gross Law Reminds Investors of August 17 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OLIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated IPP Antitrust Suit
OLIN CORP: Shin-Etsu & Formosa Dismissed From Antitrust Suits
OPTION CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses' Overtime Wages, Folan Suit Says
PALISADES ACQUISITION: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid
PAR ELECTRICAL: Curley Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California
PARK AVENUE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Philips CPAP Machine
POINT LOMA: Faces Singh Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
POST FOODS: Judge Finalizes Attorney Fees in Labeling Settlement
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: High Court Tosses Appeal in Class Action
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Keirsted Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
PURDUE PHARMA: Rochester City SD Set to Settle Opioid Lawsuits
REKOR SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
REKOR SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of August 30 Deadline
REKOR SYSTEMS: Schall Law Firm Reminds August 30 Deadline
RISHAVENA INC: Fails to Pay Coordinators' Wages, Millien Alleges
ROACH & MURTHA: Burgess Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ROCKET COMPANIES: Gross Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
SANTA ROSA: Papadimitropoulos Labor Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
SEEKING ALPHA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SKILLZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Harris Sues Over Fruit Drinks' Deceptive Labels
SOUTHERN THERAPY: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
SUN LIFE: Refuses Change to Death Benefit Option C, Insurers Say
SYNNEX CORPORATION: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Kent Suit Alleges
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
TARENA INT'L: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TEVA PHARMA: Suffolk County Jury to Decide on Opioid Class Lawsuit
TEX MEX II: Onofre Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips
TIER 1: Faces McCain Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE: Mayo Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
TRANSUNION LLC: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
TRANSUNION LLC: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in FCRA Class Action
TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, AL: Beasley Balks at Teachers' Unpaid Classes
TUTOR PERINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gamez Suit Claims
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Driver's Agreement Bars Class Action Lawsuit
UBIQUITI INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline
UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS: Zuniga FLSA Suit Removed to D. Nevada
UNIFIN INC: McBride Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
UNITED DEBT: Benitez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
USAA CASUALTY: Class Certification Filing Deadline Extended
UZID LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VERMONT HOTEL: Ex Plaintiff Calls Suit a Necessary 1st Recognition
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 27 Deadline
VIRGINIA: Makes Progress, But Thousands Still Waiting on Benefits
W. R. GRACE & CO: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Finger Suit Alleges
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid for Summary Judgment in WCERS Suit Pending
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Shareholders Securities Suit Underway
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Langevin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE LANGEVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01948-RMG (D.S.C., June 29, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Shipman Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN SHIPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01957-RMG (D.S.C., June 30, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Chambers Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01961-RMG
(D.S.C., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Crider Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD CRIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01945-RMG
(D.S.C., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Guillen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICK GUILLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01947-RMG
(D.S.C., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ACELRX PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against AcelRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ('AcelRx' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ:ACRX) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 17,
2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 9, 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. AcelRx failed to maintain appropriate
controls over disclosure and marketing of its lead product
candidate, DSUVIA. The Company made false and misleading claims
about the efficacy and associated risks of DSUVIA in its marketing
and advertisements. This led to a heightened risk of regulatory
enforcement action against the Company. 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 AcelRx, 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]
ACTION COLLECTION: Maman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Collection
Agencies, Inc. The case is styled as Nir Maman, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Action
Collection Agencies, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-03755 (E.D.N.Y., July
2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Action Collection Agencies, Inc. --
https://www.actioncollection.com/ -- specializes in third party
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).
On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock
between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017.
On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class
action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017.
The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.).
On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the
initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between
October 7, 2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and
certain of its current and former officers/executives violated the
federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements
and/or omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i)
concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of our products
and (ii) overstated our ability to achieve profitable sales growth.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees.
The company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims. The company filed a motion
to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based
on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint
but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on
five challenged statements to proceed to discovery.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company
permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's
class certification order, and the briefing of that appeal has been
completed. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses
resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult,
particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for
monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key
evidential and legal issues have not been resolved.
Acuity said, "For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict
the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the
possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from the
matters described above. We are insured, in excess of a
self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management
solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial,
infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and
internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is
headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
ADVANCE KIDS INC: Buckans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Kids, Inc. et
al. The case is styled as Lillye Buckans, on behalf of herself and
on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Advance Kids, Inc.,
Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00303450-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., July 1, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Advance Kids -- https://www.advancekids.com/ -- is committed to
utilizing Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) to help individuals of
all ages and disabilities to achieve a high quality of life.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
AETNA LIFE: Wants Court to Hear Spinal Surgery Coverage Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Aetna Life
Ins. Co. wants the Ninth Circuit to hear a dispute over its spinal
surgery coverage, saying the case was wrongly certified as a class
action despite individual differences in whether plaintiffs
exhausted their health plans' internal claims procedures.
The health plans at issue "contain express requirements mandating
that a claimant exhaust two levels of internal administrative
appeals before filing suit," Aetna said in a June 25 petition to
appeal. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California "made this finding -- but then it sidestepped the
obvious individualized inquiry that exhaustion requires, which
should destroy commonality. [GN]
AFFECTIONATE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Daywalt Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANN MARGARET DAYWALT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFECTIONATE HOME HEALTH CARE
SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02867 (E.D. Penn., June
28, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful payroll practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The Plaintiff begun her employment with the Defendant on or about
June 2, 2018 in the position of Home Health Aide.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to accurately track
and maintain records of his and similarly situated Home Health
Aides hours worked. As a result, despite regularly working more
than 40 hours per week, they were not paid their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours work in excess of 40 in a
workweek, the Plaintiff says.
Affectionate Home Health Care Services, LLC provides home health
care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preeya Bansal, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (267) 273-1054
Fax: (215) 525-0210
E-mail: pbansal@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
ALASKA: To Begin Gender-Affirming Healthcare Coverage on Medicaid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Berman, writing for Anchorage Daily News, reports that
gender-affirming health care will soon become a covered benefit for
Alaskans on Medicaid.
The change is the result of a settlement in a lawsuit filed against
the state health department that challenged the legality of
excluding transgender Alaskans from health coverage related to
their gender transitions.
Last year, three Alaskans sued the Alaska Department of Health and
Social Services Commissioner Adam Crum and the department, arguing
the state's refusal to cover transition-related health care was a
civil rights violation.
A settlement in the case was reached early this year. It stipulated
an end to previous exclusions of gender-affirming health coverage
-- including "treatment, therapy, surgery, or other procedures
related to gender reassignment," and for "transsexual surgical
procedures or secondary consequences" -- from the state Medicaid
plan. The state posted a public notice reflecting those policy
changes, which are scheduled to go into effect July 25.
The 2020 lawsuit was an amended version of one filed in 2019. At
the time, Alaska was one of less than a dozen states with a
Medicaid program that explicitly excluded coverage for
gender-affirming care.
Gender dysphoria is classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders as "the clinically significant distress
or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of function
associated with the incongruence between a transgender person's
gender identity and assigned sex."
The lawsuit described incidents where the three plaintiffs -- Swan
Being, Robin Black and Austin Reed -- sought care and were told
that Alaska Medicaid would not cover it.
Being is a Homer woman in her early 70s who was medically diagnosed
with gender dysphoria and had been living as a woman for more than
five years, according to the lawsuit.
Although her doctors had recommended she continue to receive
medical treatment related to her hormone levels, the lawsuit stated
that she received a notice from a contractor for the state that
said "hormonal injections and lab work associated with gender
reassignment is not a covered benefit under Alaska Medicaid."
Black and Reed report similar experiences in the lawsuit: Both were
denied coverage for different surgical procedures meant to treat
their diagnosed gender dysphoria, their attorneys wrote in the
lawsuit.
Carl Charles, an attorney with Lambda Legal, was one of the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs alongside the Northern Justice Project,
a local law firm. His team helped win a recent ruling in Alaska in
which a federal judge sided with a transgender state employee who
sued the state on a similar allegation of health care
discrimination.
"Transition-related health care is essential health care," Charles
said in an emailed statement on June 28. "This is a significant
step toward ensuring the health and safety of all transgender
Alaskans."
A spokesperson from the Alaska Department of Health and Social
Services said in an emailed statement on June 29 that the
settlement and recent regulation amendments were a result of the
Affordable Care Act and a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision,
Bostock V. Clayton Country.
Editor's note: This story has been updated to clarify a quote by
Carl Charles and add a statement from the Alaska Department of
Health and Social Services on June 29. [GN]
ALDI INC: Vesota Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALDI, Inc. The case
is styled as Michelle Nicole Vesota, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ALDI, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03574
(N.D. Ill., July 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
ALDI Inc. -- https://www.aldi.us/ -- owns and operates grocery
stores. The Company offers grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and
beer, beverages, and other home products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
ALYK INC: Faces Manson Suit Over Defective LOLA Tampons
-------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALYK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-05688 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of breach of express warranty, breach
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, unjust enrichment,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the New York General
Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing and marketing of
defective LOLA Tampons. The products are defective because they
unravel and/or come apart upon removal from the body, and in some
cases, cause users to seek medical attention to remove tampon
pieces left in the body. Additionally, the defect can cause
infections, vaginal irritation, localized vaginal injury, and other
symptoms. The defect renders the products unsuitable for their
principal and intended purpose and therefore renders the products
worthless. The Defendant is well-aware of the issue as several
consumers already complained about it but it refuses to do anything
to remediate or address the issue, the suit says.
Alyk, Inc. is a company that provides personal hygiene products,
with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Exploiting Consumers by Price Gouging, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelena Dzhanova at Business Insider reports that a lawsuit accuses
Amazon of "exploiting consumers in their most vulnerable hour" by
hiking up prices on medical items, cleaning products, canned food
and other necessary supplies during the coronavirus pandemic.
The class-action lawsuit has now expanded to potentially include
all Amazon shoppers across the US who purchased such products, the
law firm Hagens Berman said.
The lawsuit says American consumers turned to Amazon and other
online retailers at the height of the coronavirus pandemic in the
spring of 2020, when stay-at-home orders and the threat of the
disease made it difficult to purchase much-needed food and
supplies.
"In this environment-consistent with the directions of government
and public health officials-consumers have understandably turned to
online purchasing, and Amazon in particular, to fulfill their
essential needs," the lawsuit says. "Without venturing into public
and risking exposure to themselves and others, with just a few
clicks Americans can purchase consumer goods from Amazon that will
be delivered to their homes."
Amazon did not immediately reply to a request for comment from
Insider asking about the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges the e-commerce giant significantly hiked up
prices of various goods. The cost of face masks, for example,
jumped 500%, the lawsuit alleges, from $20 to $120. Disinfectant
cost went up by 100%, the lawsuit says, while the cost of an
ordinary staple pantry item like black beans went up by 672%. Among
other items whose costs drastically went up on Amazon were pain
relievers, flour, and cold remedies, according to the lawsuit.
The complaint, first filed in April 2020 in California's Northern
District Court, says some items went up by as much as 1,000%.
"Some of the unlawful increases were on sales of products supplied
by third parties, sales which Amazon controls and reaps huge
profits from," the lawsuit says.
Though there is no federal law explicitly making price-gouging
illegal, many states have outlawed the practice during an
emergency, like a natural disaster or pandemic.
"Amazon is the functional seller of these products and is
responsible when price-gouged sales violate the law. But in
addition, Amazon has inflated prices on its own inventory of
products, which Amazon supplies and sells directly to consumers,"
according to the complaint.
Amazon in May said Congress should pass a federal law against price
gouging to make one clear standard and definition.
Hagens Berman put out a call on its website asking people who've
purchased from online retailers during the COVID-19 pandemic to
describe their experience.
"Unfair price gouging may have caused you to pay more," the call
says, directing consumers to fill out a form "to find out your
consumer rights to potential compensation."
In March of last year, Amazon said it removed almost 4,000
individual sellers for price gouging during the pandemic.
But months into the pandemic, sellers continued to charge up to 14
times more than other retailers for regular household products like
soap and hand sanitizer. [GN]
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Faces Caicedo Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUGENIA CAICEDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE
WELLPOINT COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05642
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant
for unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, denial of medical leave
and retaliation pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act and
unlawful discrimination practices pursuant to the New York State
Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field sales
representative in Anthem's Medicare Department in June 1996 until
September 2018.
The Anthem Companies, Inc., formerly known as The Wellpoint
Companies, Inc., is a healthcare enterprise that provides programs
and services to uninsured and underinsured individuals, with its
principal executive office located at 120 Monument Circle,
Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Artificially Inflate Stock Price, Keippel Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN KEIPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a ATI
INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, JIM FUSARO, NIPUL PATEL, TROY ALSTEAD,
ORLANDO D. ASHFORD, FRANK CANNOVA, RON P. CORIO, BRAD FORTH, PETER
JONNA, JASON LEE, ATI INVESTMENT PARENT, LLC, OAKTREE ATI
INVESTORS, L.P., OAKTREE POWER OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, L.P., and
OAKTREE POWER OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV (PARALLEL), L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-05658 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements in the December 2020 and March 2021 initial
public offerings (IPO) of Array Technologies in order to
artificially inflate prices of Array securities between October 14,
2020 and May 11, 2021. In the offerings, the Defendants made no
mention of issues revolving around, inter alia, material negative
impacts of rising steel and freight costs on business operations.
Furthermore, subsequent to the offerings, the Defendants repeatedly
and consistently painted a materially misleading picture of the
company's business and prospects that did not reflect these rising
costs, the suit says.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock dropped $11.49 per
share on May 12, 2021 to close at $13.46 per share on unusually
high trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
Array Technologies, Inc., formerly known as ATI Intermediate
Holdings, LLC, is a global technology company, with its principal
executive offices located at 3901 Midway Place NE, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
ATI Investment Parent, LLC was the former parent company of ATI
Intermediate Holdings, LLC that maintains an office in New York.
Oaktree ATI Investors, L.P. is an investment company that maintains
an office in New York.
Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV, L.P. is an investment company
that maintains an office in New York.
Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV (Parallel), L.P. is an
investment company that maintains an office in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on June 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of investors that purchased Athira
Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about
September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Investors have until
August 24, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Athira is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company that is
focused on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health
and stop neurodegeneration.
On June 17, 2021, after the market closed, Athira announced that it
had placed its president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen
Kawas ("Kawas"), on leave pending a review of actions stemming from
doctoral research she conducted while at Washington State
University ("WSU").
The same day, STAT published an article stating that WSU was
investigating claims that Dr. Kawas "published several papers
containing altered images while she was a graduate student." These
papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to treat Alzheimer's"
because they "established that a particular molecule affects the
activity of HGF." Though Athira is developing a different molecule
than the one Kawas examined in the papers at issue, her "doctoral
work laid the biological groundwork that Athira continues to use in
their approach to treating Alzheimer's."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.09, or
approximately 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021.
If you purchased Athira common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the IPO and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & 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.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of
Athira Pharma, Inc. ("Athira" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA). The
class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Athira
common stock pursuant or traceable to the September 2020 initial
public stock offering (the "IPO"). If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than August 24, 2021.
On or about September 18, 2020, Athira sold 12 million shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO") at $17 a
share, raising about $204,000,000 in new capital. The complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact,
omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained
therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures
required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation.
The lawsuit alleges defendants misrepresented and omitted crucial
truths in the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO
regarding Athira CEO and President Leen Kawas. When the Company
announced after the close of trading on June 17, 2021, that the
Athira Board placed Dr. Kawas on temporary leave in light of claims
that Dr. Kawas falsified research results in various academic
papers, Athira's stock plunged approximately 40% from $18.24 to
$11.15 per share, well below the $17.00 IPO price, causing injury
to all those who purchased Athira common stock pursuant or
traceable to the IPO.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than August 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff
will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the
Athira class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the
Athira class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more about the case,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471.
If you email, please include your phone number.
About Johnson Fistel
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do
not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 28 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in Western District of Washington on
behalf of purchasers of Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA)
securities between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Wang v. Athira Pharma,
Inc., No. 21-cv-00861, and charges Athira Pharma and its CEO with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Athira Pharma class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Athira Pharma
class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than
August 24, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Athira Pharma is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing small molecules to
restore neuronal health and stop neurodegeneration for those
suffering from devastating neurological diseases, including
Alzheimer's disease.
The Athira Pharma class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (1) the research conducted by Athira
Pharma's President and CEO, defendant Leen Kawas, which formed the
foundation for Athira Pharma's product candidates and intellectual
property, was tainted by Kawas's scientific misconduct, including
the manipulation of key data; and (2) as a result, defendants'
positive statements about Athira Pharma's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading.
On June 17, 2021, Athira Pharma issued a press release announcing
that Athira Pharma's Board of Directors had placed Kawas on
temporary leave pending a review of actions stemming from doctoral
research Kawas conducted while at Washington State University. An
article published in STAT News later that day revealed that the
investigation of Kawas related to allegations that she altered
images in four separate papers relating to her research on
hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), a protein with the potential to
treat Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. The
article noted that although Athira Pharma "has since moved on to a
different molecule than the one Kawas was working on, it still aims
to target HGF. And so Kawas's doctoral work laid the biological
groundwork that Athira continues to use in their approach to
treating Alzheimer's." On this news, Athira Pharma's stock price
fell by nearly 39%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Athira Pharma
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Athira Pharma 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 Athira Pharma
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Athira Pharma class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 • 619-231-1058
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 28
announced the filing of class action lawsuits on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA):
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted in September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or
(b) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than August 24, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Athira securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's IPO and/or 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 Athira class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2111.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 August 24, 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 lawsuits, the Offering
documents contained and defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the research
conducted by the Company's Chief Executive Officer and President,
Leen Kawas, was tainted by Kawas' scientific misconduct, including
the manipulation of key data through the altering of Western blot
images; (2) this purported research was foundational to Athira's
efforts to develop treatments for Alzheimer's because it laid the
biological groundwork that Athira was using in its approach to
treating Alzheimer's; (3) as a result, Athira's intellectual
property and product development for the treatment of Alzheimer's
was based on invalid research; 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. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Athira class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2111.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.
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]
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Supreme Court of Canada Tosses VLT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MarketScreener reports that by a slim majority, the Supreme Court
of Canada ("SCC") has recently struck and dismissed a proposed
class action brought against the Atlantic Lottery Corporation
("ALC") with respect to the licensing of video lottery terminals
("VLTs") in Newfoundland and Labrador, finding that the plaintiffs'
claims that VLTs are inherently dangerous and deceptive disclosed
no reasonable cause of action.
The lead plaintiffs, Douglas Babstock and Fred Small, applied for
certification of a class action against ALC, on behalf of any
natural person resident in Newfoundland and Labrador who paid to
play VLTs in that province in the six years preceding the class
action, or on behalf of the estate of any such person. Relying on
three causes of action: (1) waiver of tort; (2) breach of contract;
and (3) unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs sought a gain-based
award, quantified by the profit that ALC earned by licensing VLTs.
In a 5-4 decision, the SCC found that the plaintiffs' claims for
waiver of tort, breach of contract and unjust enrichment disclosed
no reasonable cause of action, and set aside the certification
order. A minority of the SCC disagreed with the majority's position
regarding breach of contract, and found that the class
certification should be allowed for that aspect of the claim. Most
notably, the SCC unanimously agreed that waiver of tort is not an
independent cause of action for disgorgement under Canadian law and
should be abandoned.
Waiver of Tort
With respect to the waiver of tort claim, the plaintiffs' alleged
that "ALC breached a duty to warn of the inherent dangers
associated with VLTs, including the risk of addiction and suicidal
ideation", which justified an award based on disgorgement. Writing
for the majority, Justice Russel Brown stated:
The plaintiffs say that a claim relying on waiver of tort as an
independent cause of action for disgorgement has at least a
reasonable chance of succeeding at trial. Before the [Newfoundland
and Labrador] Court of Appeal's decision in this case, however, no
Canadian authority had recognized such a cause of action, although
the plaintiffs rely on a line of class action certification
decisions in which courts have refrained from finding that it is
plain and obvious that such an action does not exist. The
plaintiffs place significant emphasis on Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.
v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477
("Microsoft") where this Court, citing conflicting authorities on
this point declined to resolve it (para. 97).
The SCC took this as an opportunity to clarify that the novel cause
of action does not exist in Canadian law and that "the term "waiver
of tort" is confusing, and should be abandoned. The SCC further
clarified that disgorgement is not an independent cause of action,
but rather, is an alternative remedy for certain forms of wrongful
conduct. By pleading disgorgement as an independent cause of
action, the plaintiffs' sought to establish a new category of
wrongful conduct - one that was akin to negligence but did not
require proof of damage. Although disgorgement is available for
some forms of wrongdoing without proof of damage (e.g. breach of
fiduciary duty), the SCC found that plaintiffs are not entitled to
pursue a remedy for disgorgement in cases that are akin to
negligence where they cannot prove - or choose not to prove -
resulting damage. On this basis, the SCC unanimously held that the
novel cause of action pursued by the plaintiffs had no reasonable
chance of succeeding at trial.
Breach of Contract
As with waiver of tort, the majority also found that the
plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract disclosed no reasonable
cause of action, as there were no remedies available to them.
The plaintiffs alleged that ALC's offer of VLTs to the public, and
the plaintiffs' corresponding acceptance by paying to play,
constituted a contract. The plaintiffs further alleged that an
implied term of said contract required ALC "to provide safe games
that were fit for use and of merchantable quality, to use
reasonable skill and care in its provision of VLT gaming, and to
act in good faith." According to the plaintiffs, ALC breached these
terms by supplying deceptive VLTs.
The plaintiffs sought only non-compensatory damages, namely
disgorgement and punitive damages. Accordingly, the majority
approached the issue of whether the pleadings disclosed a
reasonable cause of action by considering whether the remedies
sought were actually available to the plaintiffs.
The majority acknowledged that disgorgement may be available for
breach of contract, but "only where other remedies are inadequate,
and only where the circumstances warrant such an award." The
majority concluded that the plaintiffs' gambling losses were
readily quantifiable, and as such, could be cured through an award
of compensatory damages. In other words, alternate remedies to
disgorgement were not inadequate. In coming to this determination,
the majority noted that "compensatory damages are not inadequate
merely because a plaintiff is unwilling, or does not have
sufficient evidence, to prove loss", and that disgorgement for
breach of contract is not available where a plaintiff is merely
attempting to avoid having to establish that they suffered damage.
In terms of punitive damages, the majority found that although the
duty of good faith is an organizing principle of Canadian contract
law, its application is generally confined to existing categories
of contracts and obligations, and that the alleged contract in this
case did not fit within any of these established categories. As a
result, the majority concluded that the plaintiffs' claim for
punitive damages also had no reasonable prospect of success.
Writing for the minority, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis disagreed
with the majority's conclusion regarding breach of contract, and
found that it was not "plain and obvious" that this claim was bound
to fail. The minority was of the view that there were several
remedies available to the plaintiffs based on their pleadings,
including nominal damages, declaratory relief, disgorgement, and
punitive damages, and that the issue of whether the plaintiffs'
were entitled to the benefit of any of these remedies, was a matter
for the trial judge.
Unjust Enrichment
The SCC unanimously determined that the plaintiff's claim for
unjust enrichment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
The plaintiffs' pleadings alleged that there was a contract between
ALC and VLT users, and there was no evidence that the contract was
void. ALC acquired a benefit pursuant to said contract, and
therefore, was justified in retaining that benefit. In addition,
the SCC rejected the plaintiffs' argument that VLTs contravened the
Criminal Code's prohibition against gambling games similar to
Three-card Monte, concluding that there was no indication that VLTs
operated in the same manner.
Key Takeaways
The majority of the SCC held that each of the plaintiffs' claims
were bound to fail, because none of them disclosed a reasonable
cause of action. Accordingly, the SCC ordered that the
certification order be set aside and the plaintiffs' claim be
struck in its entirety.
This decision has definitively resolved the uncertainty surrounding
the claim for waiver of tort and disgorgement, and will have a
significant impact on the certification of class actions moving
forward.
As Justice Brown wrote for the majority:
certification judges have had "little alternative but to affirm
that the question of the doctrines availability is indeed a live
issue for trial, which can and does result in certification to the
detriment of the defendant, who is then practically compelled to
pay a settlement to the plaintiff" (J.M. Martin, "Waiver of Tort:
An Historical and Practical Study" (2012), 52 Can. Bus. L.J. 473,
at para. 476 (footnote omitted); see also H.M. Rosenberg, "Waiving
Goodbye: The Rise and Imminent Fall of Waiver of Tort in Class
Proceedings" (2010), 6 Can. Class Action Rev. 37, at p. 38).
Indeed, this Court's decision to refrain from striking the waiver
of tort claim in Microsoft has been taken as an affirmative
statement that such claims are viable ... Nothing is gained, and
much court time and considerable litigant resources are lost, by
leaving this issue unresolved.
Prior to this decision, plaintiffs would be able to plead this
novel claim and ride a waive towards certification, while avoiding
to have to prove individual damage. By clarifying this issue, the
SCC has narrowed the doorway to certification and levelled the
playing field.
See the decision here:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18425/index.do
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances.
Patrick Sullivan (Whitelaw Twining)
CLC (Canadian Litigation Counsel)
The Exchange Tower
130 King St W #2700
Toronto
ON M5X 1C7
CANADA
Tel: 416860-8392
E-mail: Hbborlack@mccagueborlack.com
URL: clcnow.com/ [GN]
AUGUSTA COOPERATIVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Augusta Cooperative
Farm Bureau, Incorporated. The case is styled as Victoriano
Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, Incorporated, Case No.
1:21-cv-05703 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, Inc. (Augusta Co-op) --
https://www.augustacoop.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rural and
agriculture lifestyle products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Faces Hayes Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HAYES; and KATRINA NASH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTOMATION PERSONNEL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00859-JHE (N.D. Ala.,
June 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
individuals who obtained temporary employment through Defendant,
including name, Social Security number, and financial account
information (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or
"PII").
According to the complaint, on November 17, 2020, the Defendant
"discovered suspicious activity impacting the operability of
certain systems" (the "Data Breach"). At the time of the Data
Breach, these "systems" stored the PII of more than 299,000
individuals that obtained temporary employment through Defendant.
On December 24, 2020, reports began surfacing on the Internet that
an archive of 440 GB of data that belong to Defendant had been
"leaked on a popular hacker platform" after the Defendant refused
to pay a ransom to cybercriminals and that "[s]ince the data was
made freely available in the final week of November, it's safe to
assume that multiple users of the hacker forum where it was posted
had access to the data."
On or around March 17, 2021, approximately four months after it
learned of the Data Breach, Defendant began notifying Plaintiffs
and Class Members of the Data Breach. By obtaining, collecting,
using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiffs and Class
Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those
individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the
unencrypted PII exposed to "unauthorized activity" included names,
Social Security numbers, and financial account information, the
suit says.
Automation Personnel Services, Inc. provides staffing solutions.
The Company specializes in recruiting and screening applicants for
light industrial, production, legal, medical, and warehouse
positions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq.
AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
1772 Platt Place
Montgomery, AL 36117
Telephone: (334) 215-9873
Facsimile: (334) 213-5663
E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com
-and-
Erby J. Fischer, II
MORGAN & MORGAN ALABAMA, PLLC
2317 3rd Avenue North, Suite 102
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (659) 204-6364
E-mail: efischer@forthepeople.com
-and-
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
BUSINESS DIVISION
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
BALTIMORE LIFE: Griffin Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yvette Griffin,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, All
Plaintiffs v. The Baltimore Life Insurance Company, All Defendants;
Q3M Insurance Solutions, LLC, Robert Hudson, Artreanua Carr,
ThirdParty Defendant; Case No. 1:21-mc-00502 (S.D.N.Y., July 1,
2021).
The Baltimore Life Insurance Company -- https://www.baltlife.com/
-- operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life,
health, and disability insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants appears pro se.
BANK OF AMERICA: Control CDS Market, State Investment Council Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; BARCLAYS
PLC; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS S.A.;
BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIBANK N.A.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED;
CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE CAPITAL LLC; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL;
DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS
GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL;
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY; MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC; MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC; MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL SERVICES,
LLC; NATWEST GROUP PLC; NATWEST MARKETS PLC; NATWEST MARKETS
SECURITIES, INC.; THE INTERNATIONAL SWAPS AND DERIVATIVES
ASSOCIATION, INC.; CREDITEX GROUP INC; HIS MARKIT, LTD.; and JANE
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00606-KK-JFR (D.N.M., June
30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment and violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the
Commodity Exchange Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a
conspiracy to manipulate the final auction price in the credit
default swaps (CDS) market. They have implemented this conspiracy
by using their power over the CDS auction process to rig the CDS
auctions and produce a supra-competitively low CDS final auction
price. Working with three entities over which the dealers yield
significant power and influence, the conspiracy has yielded them
billions of dollars in cartel profits at the expense of non-dealer
market participants like the Plaintiff and the putative Class
members. The Plaintiff brings this class action to stop the
Defendants' alleged violations of federal antitrust law and federal
market manipulation law, to obtain compensation for putative Class
members who have suffered billions of dollars in injuries over the
life of the Defendants' scheme, and to reform the CDS auction
process.
New Mexico State Investment Council is an institutional investment
firm in New Mexico.
Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bank of America, N.A. is a financial services company headquartered
in Charlotte, North Carolina.
BofA Securities, Inc. is a brokerage firm located in New York, New
York.
Barclays PLC is a British multinational universal bank,
headquartered in London, England.
Barclays Bank PLC is a British multinational universal bank,
headquartered in London, England.
Barclays Capital Inc. is a brokerage firm in New York, New York.
BNP Paribas S.A. is an international banking group based in Paris,
France.
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. is a provider of banking and asset
management services based in New York, New York.
Citigroup, Inc. is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services corporation headquartered in New York, New
York.
Citibank N.A. is the consumer division of financial services
multinational Citigroup, headquartered in New York, New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a banking and financial services
company, headquartered in New York, New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Limited is a banking and financial
services company, headquartered in New York, New York.
Credit Suisse Group AG is a global investment bank and financial
services firm founded and based in Switzerland.
Credit Suisse AG is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is an investment banking
company, headquartered in New York, New York.
Credit Suisse Capital LLC is a financial services firm,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Credit Suisse International is a financial services firm based in
Switzerland.
Deutsche Bank AG is a multinational investment bank and financial
services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is an investment advisory services
firm, headquartered in New York, New York.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company headquartered in New York, New
York.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Goldman Sachs International is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company headquartered in New York, New
York.
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New
York, New York.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is an American national bank
headquartered in Manhattan, New York.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC is an investment management company,
headquartered in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC is a financial services firm
based in London, England.
Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC is an investment management
company, headquartered in New York, New York.
NatWest Group PLC is a banking and insurance holding company, based
in Edinburgh, Scotland.
NatWest Markets PLC is the investment banking arm of NatWest Group,
based in London, England.
NatWest Markets Securities, Inc. is a brokerage firm based in
Stamford, Connecticut.
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. is a
trade organization of participants in the market for
over-the-counter derivatives, headquartered in New York, New York.
Creditex Group Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Intercontinental Exchange, headquartered in New York, New York.
IHS Markit, Ltd. is an American-British information provider based
in London, England. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Cholla Khoury, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL
Post Office Drawer 1508
Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508
Telephone: (505) 490-4052
E-mail: ckhoury@nmag.gov
- and –
David E. Kovel, Esq.
Thomas Popejoy, Esq.
KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
E-mail: DKovel@kmlllp.com
TPopejoy@kmllp.com
BARNES & NOBLE: Consolidated Retailers Putative Class Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended May 1, 2021, that the consolidated
purported class action suit initiated by retailers of collegiate
course materials or current or former college students, has been
dismissed.
Between January 22, 2020, and June 15, 2020, thirteen purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, and the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Company, along with several publishers, another collegiate
bookstore retailer, and an industry association.
The plaintiffs are retailers of collegiate course materials or
current or former college students.
Although the specific allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally
claim, on their own behalf and on behalf of the purported classes,
that the Company and the other defendants violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1), Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15
U.S.C. Section 2), Section 13(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15
U.S.C. Section 13(a)), and various state antitrust and unfair trade
practices laws for alleged activities in connection with inclusive
access and the sale of course materials to universities and their
students.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
consolidated these and other related cases in a consolidated
proceeding before the Hon. Denise L. Cote of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On October 16, 2020, three named student plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint, as did the retailer plaintiffs.
The student plaintiffs and retailer plaintiffs each filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 18, 2020, which all
Defendants jointly moved to dismiss on January 22, 2021. On June
14, 2021, the Court ordered both cases dismissed with prejudice.
Should Plaintiffs pursue an appeal, we intend to vigorously defend
this matter. We are currently unable to estimate any potential
losses.
Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is one of the largest contract
operators of physical and virtual bookstores for college and
university campuses and K-12 institutions across the United States.
The company is also one of the largest textbook wholesalers,
inventory management hardware and software providers, and a leading
provider of digital education solutions. The company is based in
Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
BED BATH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended May 29, 2021, that the defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action
suit headed by Kavin Bakhda, is pending.
A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020
against the Company and three of our officers and/or directors
(Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief
Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey federal
court").
The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of our securities from October 2,
2019 through February 11, 2020.
The Complaint alleges that certain of our disclosures about
financial performance and certain other public statements during
the putative class period were materially false or misleading.
A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same
claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same
defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020.
That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 14,
2020, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed Kavin
Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead plaintiff and additional named
plaintiff Richard Lipka filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on
October 20, 2020, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
the Company's securities from September 4, 2019 through February
11, 2020.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 21,
2020.
Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic
merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores
in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was
founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global
1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey.
BELMONT PEANUTS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belmont Peanuts of
Southampton, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Belmont
Peanuts of Southampton, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05699 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Belmont Peanuts -- https://belmontpeanuts.com/ -- are an everyday
luxury for peanut lovers who want exceptional taste, unrivaled
variety, and a remarkably crisp and satisfying crunch.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BIG SUGAR: Court Upholds Residents' Claims in Pollution Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has upheld negligence, strict liability, and
medical monitoring claims brought by Florida residents in a lawsuit
against conglomerate sugarcane growers who practice widespread
sugarcane crop burning causing pollution, property damage and
hazardous air quality, according to Hagens Berman and Berman Law
Group of Florida.
In his July 2, 2021 order, Judge Rodney Smith of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a motion to
dismiss the proposed class action against Florida sugarcane
growers, finding that the plaintiffs - central Florida residents
who allege that their health and property are damaged by sugarcane
burning - sufficiently plead claims for negligence, strict
liability and medical monitoring. Defendants in the case are
Florida Crystals Corporation, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperation of
Florida, United States Sugar Corporation, Okeelanta Corporation,
Osceola Farms Co., Sugarland Harvesting Co., Trucane Sugar
Corporation, Independent Harvesting Inc. and J&J AH Products Inc.
In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
Florida residents from the communities of Belle Glade, South Bay,
Pahokee, Clewiston, Moore Haven, Canal Point and Indiantown, all of
which sit in and among defendants' sugarcane fields. If you live in
an area of Florida affected by toxic smoke and ash created by the
sugar industry's sugarcane burning, find out your rights »
"Today's victory is a showcase of the power of strength in numbers:
these Florida residents are successfully taking on some of the
biggest food corporations on the planet on behalf of their
communities," said Steve Berman, co-founder and managing partner of
Hagens Berman. "We look forward to continuing this courtroom fight
for the rights of Floridians to clean air free of pollution, ash
and black snow."
In his order, Judge Smith found that the plaintiffs adequately
alleged, based in part on air modeling done using publicly
available data, that particulate matter and pollutants generated by
sugarcane burning could be plausibly traced to each defendant: ". .
. . when considered with the other allegations. . . . including the
proximity of the burning to Plaintiffs' properties and the air
modeling based on publicly available data, Plaintiffs have
adequately pled standing as to harm from particulate matter and
other pollutants."
"The Florida legislature recently passed sweeping changes to
Florida's Right to Farm Act that are aimed directly at stopping
lawsuits like this, so we are gratified that Judge Smith noted in
his opinion that the newly enacted law will not apply
retroactively," said Matthew Moore, lead attorney for Florida's
Berman Law Group. "One can only guess what industry was pushing for
those changes, but, this lawsuit moves forward, and these
communities can finally seek justice."
The judge also upheld claims regarding the effects of defendants'
burning on residents' property and health, finding that the
plaintiffs adequately alleged exposure to greater than normal
background levels of proven hazardous substances - thus
significantly increasing their risk of developing lung cancer.
The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for the Florida sugar industry's
actions, which have damaged the health and property of local
residents. It also requests that the defendants finance a
court-supervised medical monitoring program, including annual
screening and testing, to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment
of lung cancer.
"Our law firm got its start in the 90s with a courtroom win against
Big Tobacco in the largest settlement in world history," Berman
said. "Once again, we plan to take on the nuisance of smoke, this
time against Big Sugar."
About Sugarcane Burning in Florida, and the Residents Suffering its
Effects
Ever year between October and March, Florida's sugar industry burns
hundreds of thousands of acres of sugarcane as part of the harvest
process. This burning, 284,615 acres in 2019 alone, emits large
volumes of hazardous ash, particulate matter, and pollutants -
often called "black snow" - that covers Glades residents' property,
infiltrates their homes, and has been linked to serious health
conditions, including respiratory conditions such as asthma and
lung cancer.
This black snow is known to travel for miles from the area of a
burn, and discolors cars, homes, and office buildings. Many local
homes must be pressure washed annually, and residents' quality of
life is greatly diminished for more than half of each year. Among
the pollutants released by defendants' burning are dioxins,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds,
carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, elemental
carbon and organic carbon - many of which are classified by the
International Agency for Research on Cancer as possible human
carcinogens.
Alternative, environmentally friendly harvesting methods (often
called "green harvesting") not only exist but have been in use for
more than three decades in many parts of the world - even resulting
in greater yields from sugarcane fields in Brazil, where green
harvesting has been mandated for over ten years. While defendants
claim pre-harvest burning allows them to make more money, studies
have demonstrated that green harvesting not only improves profits
and yields after a brief adjustment period, but also better
preserves soil for future crops. [GN]
BRIDGESCAPE CAPITAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgescape Capital
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bridgescape Capital
LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-05382 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Bridgescape Capital -- https://www.bridgescapecapital.com/ --
specialize in business loans and commercial real estate loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
BROOKLYN, NY: Homeowners' Civil Rights Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Witt, writing for Brownstoner, reports that a federal court
on June 24 ruled that three central Brooklyn homeowners of color
can move forward with a class action civil rights lawsuit to
recover their wealth lost through the city's Third Party Transfer
program.
The case stems from alleged illegal seizures of homes taken in "in
rem" foreclosure proceedings under the Third Party Transfer
program. The seizures were first uncovered and reported on in a
lengthy series in Kings County Politics, now PoliticsNY.
"Our clients, working families, had their only generational wealth,
their homes, snatched from them by the City of New York under its
Third Party Transfer Program. They were not given any compensation
for these illegal and unconstitutional takings and even though the
city tried to get our lawsuit tossed, the court has now
acknowledged that our suit should continue to move forward," said
Matthew L. Berman, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys with the law
firm Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.
The city conducted the seizures under the Department of Housing,
Preservation and Development's (HPD) TPT program. The program
confiscates the entire property value of a home from the owner,
even if the homeowner owed the city only a few thousand dollars in
taxes or water and sewer charges.
HPD would then hand the houses, and that excess value, for free or
a nominal fee to development organizations of the administration's
choosing. Two of these not-for-profit entities, Neighborhood
Restore Housing Development Fund and BSDC Kings Covenant Housing
Development Fund Company, are defendants in the suit.
The three plaintiff homeowners are McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones
and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchinson.
"We have definitely been cheated and targeted through this program.
The TPT program has affected my family in many ways. My family and
our neighbors who should have remained shareholders in the building
have lost real, personal and future assets and value in the
millions of dollars, not even measuring the value of having a home
for the long term. My now deceased mother worked, for close to 25
years, to ensure that our family would have long-term residency in
an already existing affordable housing co-op. The city took that
away with the stroke of a pen," said Thomas-Murchison.
The plaintiffs aim to represent a class of property owners in the
five boroughs who have lost their properties to the city without
receiving compensation for their lost equity.
The plaintiffs had to go to the U.S. Court of Appeals after the
city challenged the plaintiffs' right to file a class-action
lawsuit, arguing the matter should be one of state court
jurisdiction. But the plaintiffs successfully argued it is a
federal issue as the taking of their property falls under the 5th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, requiring just compensation for
the taking of a person's property.
The properties seized by the city in its most recent batch of TPT
transfers were collectively valued at more than $66 million at the
time the suit was filed, and now are worth much more. Additionally,
the suit seeks to recover the equity value of hundreds of
additional properties seized by the city dating back to the early
1990s, with values potentially estimated in the hundreds of
millions.
A city Law Department spokesperson noted the ruling was procedural
on a jurisdictional issue and the merits have not been heard.
"The city believes the case is meritless and should be dismissed,"
the spokesperson said. [GN]
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that software user plaintiffs will have
a chance to re-plead some of their privacy claims against Microsoft
Corporation after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a motion to
dismiss ruling. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing
and failed to state a claim for relief in its 13-page opinion.
As previously reported, the plaintiffs, businesses who use
Microsoft's software, filed suit alleging that the company shares
customers' data without their consent. The class action complaint
contends that subcontractors, developers, and third-parties,
including Facebook, received the information from Microsoft despite
privacy policies promising otherwise. They state claims for relief
under the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and
several Washington consumer protection and privacy laws.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted at the outset of her analysis that "the
precise nature of plaintiffs' claims lacks clarity." The court held
that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege
facts enabling a "reasonable inference that they have been injured
by Microsoft's conduct." The opinion called the allegations
"generic," because they concluded, without the requisite support,
that Microsoft improperly used and shared customer data.
For similar and additional reasons, Judge Gonzalez Rogers
determined that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on the
merits. The complaint suggested that Microsoft could be using
customer data and subcontractors to develop new products, but put
forward no facts suggesting that this actually happens, the opinion
said.
The plaintiffs have until July 21 to amend their pleading. They are
represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP and The Golan Firm PLLC.
Microsoft is represented by Cooley. [GN]
CANADA: Ont. Appeal Court Upheld Denial of Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Thoburn, Esq., and David Elman, Esq., of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Cirillo v.
Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the denial of
certification of a proposed class action alleging a systemic
failure by the Crown to hold timely bail hearings for accused
persons.
Background
The proposed representative plaintiff, Robin Cirillo, was arrested
in May 2017 following a domestic altercation with her ex-spouse.
Cirillo was detained overnight for a bail hearing. The hearing was
subsequently delayed for various reasons until the following day,
when she was released on consent.
Cirillo sought to certify a class action against the Crown in
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of various Charter
rights. The proposed class was defined as all persons who were
arrested and detained for a period of more than 24 hours prior to
any bail hearing "as a result of" five specified causes. The claim
generally alleged that the Crown mismanaged the bail system, failed
to commit adequate resources and promoted policies for prosecutors
that had the effect of increasing the number of people in remand.
Superior Court decision
The motion judge denied certification on the basis that "(i) the
pleadings did not disclose a cause of action in negligence as the
claims are not justiciable; (ii) it is plain and obvious that the
claims based on breach of fiduciary duty have no prospect of
success; (iii) the appellant's claims for breach of Charter rights
were not common to class members; and (iv) a class proceeding was
not the preferable procedure for resolution of the class members'
claims."
With respect to the claims in negligence and breach of fiduciary
duty, the motion judge first concluded that there could be no cause
of action against the Crown in its prosecutorial capacity, as the
immunity of the Crown as prosecutor is "deeply entrenched" in law.
The motion judge then considered the allegations aimed at the
Crown's broader decisions related to staffing and resource
allocation decisions. In that regard, the motion judge found that
the impugned actions were "core policy decisions", which do not
give rise to a private law duty of care. The motion judge also
found that there were no common issues to be certified in terms of
the breach of Charter claims because the analysis was so fact
dependent. In particular, the motion judge highlighted the multiple
potential causes of bail hearing delays and that those causes could
be attributable to various non-parties. The Charter claims required
an individualized assessment of each case and therefore, the
proposed class action was not the preferable procedure. The motion
judge also questioned whether there was an identifiable class.
Court of Appeal
On appeal, Cirillo argued that the claims in negligence were
operational decisions, not policy choices, and thus the motion
judge erred in finding that the statement of claim did not disclose
a cause of action in negligence. Cirillo further argued that the
motion judge erred in holding that there was no common issues for
the Charter claims and that a class proceeding was not the
preferable procedure in the circumstances. While the notice of
appeal advanced arguments on the ruling on fiduciary duty, it
appears this argument was ultimately abandoned.
In its decision, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the
certification requirement under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings
Act, was the same as the test applied under r. 21.01 of the Rules
of Civil Procedure to determine whether a pleading should be struck
out for failing to disclose a cause of action. The Court affirmed
the motion judge's finding that it was plain and obvious that the
claims "on their face" related to core policy decisions and could
not form the basis of a negligence claim. The claims in negligence
were determined to relate to "resource allocation for bail hearings
and staffing" and clearly fell under the umbrella of policy
decisions without a need for any further evidence on the issue. The
Court noted that, in its view, the negligence claims would not
satisfy the remaining criteria in ss. 5(1)(b) and (d) in any event,
for the same reasons as the Charter claims.
While the Court of Appeal accepted that the Charter claims could
satisfy the cause of action criterion (and chose not to address
their viability), the Court affirmed the motion judge's finding
that they were not certifiable because they did not meet the
identifiable class, common issue or preferability criteria. The
Court found that the plaintiff, by defining the class as those who
were detained "as a result of" certain specified causes, had
brought a causation element into the class definition that was
"inherently merit-based". Accordingly, the class definition was
incapable of objective determination.
In terms of commonality, the Court of Appeal articulated that there
was no single course of conduct giving rise to the alleged Charter
breaches and thus the proposed common issues required
individualized and particularized assessments of each case. The
Court distinguished the claim from other cases where courts had
certified claims based on alleged Charter breaches. The Court found
similarity in the analysis of the British Columbia Court of Appeal
in Thorburn v. B.C., 2013 BCCA 480, where the representative
plaintiff had been arrested at a protest and strip-searched in
accordance with a specific policy. The Court noted that an
unreasonable policy alone did not necessarily translate into a
Charter claim capable of common determination or a conclusion that
a class proceeding would be a preferable procedure.
Takeaways
This decision adds helpful clarity to the operational/policy
distinction in determining whether claims in negligence can be
advanced. Moreover, the decision is noteworthy in highlighting that
even a general finding of "systemic wrong" may not avoid the need
for protracted individualized inquiries in to the circumstances of
each class member. In such cases, a class action may not be the
preferable procedure, if any true common issues exist at all.
Finally, this case highlights the potential pitfalls of attempting
to create an expansive claim through a broadly defined putative
class. [GN]
CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Investigates Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a
partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"),
announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Canoo Inc.
(NasdaqGS: GOEV, GOEVW) f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp.
IV.
On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public
entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity
named "Canoo." On March 29, 2021, post-market, the Company
announced its 4Q2020 and full year financial results, disclosing
significant changes to its business model, previously touted by the
Company to investors, deemphasizing its engineering services
business and no longer focusing on its subscription-based
business.
Thereafter, the Company and certain of its executives were sued in
a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws, which remains ongoing.
KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Canoo's officers and/or
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Canoo's shareholders
or otherwise violated state or federal laws.
If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation,
or have been a long-term holder of Canoo shares and would like to
discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to
you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goev/ to learn more.
About Kahn Swick
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. [GN]
CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Building Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Batchelor, writing for Local10.com, reports that a lawsuit
was filed over the weekend by a resident who survived the June 24
partial building collapse at Champlain Towers South in Surfside.
The lawsuit was filed on June 26 on behalf of Steve Rosenthal, who
lived in Unit 705. It is the second known lawsuit to be filed after
the collapse.
According to the complaint, the association knew or should have
known "the entire structure was deteriorating and becoming
susceptible to catastrophic loss by collapse."
Rosenthal is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a jury
trial.
"The tragedy of Champlain Towers South should not be allowed to be
repeated," Rosenthal's attorney Bob McKee said in a statement to
ABC News. "It is not a solitary freak event.
"The conditions relating to its collapse exist in many of our
hi-rise concrete buildings. Change to effectuate more frequent
inspection, with teeth in compelling immediate complete and timely
repair must be effectuated. Otherwise, we will have other events
such as the horrible failure and collapse we have all witnessed at
Champlain Towers South. The last thing we want to see is more harm,
in either slow water damaged building health damage, or in
instantaneous building failure."
The lawsuit states that the association had a duty to hire
"competent contractors, inspectors, engineers, and other
appropriate persons and corporations to perform its required
maintenance and repair duties if it was not performing the
activities itself."
Rosenthal's lawsuit comes days after a $5 million class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of another resident, Manuel Drezner and
"on behalf of all others similarly situated."
That complaint also alleges that the condominium association failed
to "secure and safeguard the lives and property" of those who live
at the building.
Officials, on their end, have been cautious to point fingers at
anyone at this time, saying the primary focus needs to be on
rescuing any possible survivors and recovering bodies from the
rubble.
They say a final determination on the cause of the collapse with
take an extended period of time. [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Churchill
Capital Corp IV ("Churchill Capital" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCIV)
for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January
11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 30, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Lucid Motors ("Lucid") was not ready to
produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected 2021
production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle
production target touted in the period before its merger with
Churchill Capital. 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 Churchill
Capital, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
CLEANSPARK INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. on June 29 disclosed that a class action
complaint was filed against CLSK alleging that CLSK failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its
customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's
recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party
transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, CLSK's
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you are a CLSK investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was
filed against GEO alleging that GEO made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO Group maintained
woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those
inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway
houses to significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the Company
was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm;
and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
If you are a GEO investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
Repro Med Systems, Inc. (NasdaqGS: KRMD)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was
filed against KRMD alleging that KRMD failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the
use of allowances, including growth rebates, to retain key
customers and to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued,
the Company's net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, KRMD's positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you are a KRMD investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE: RMO)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was
filed against RMO alleging that RMO was suffering from an acute
shortage of high quality battery cells, which are key raw materials
for RMO's battery packs and modules, due to supply constraints. The
Complaint further alleges that contrary to Defendants'
representations, (i) RMO had only two battery cell suppliers, not
four, (ii) the future potential risks that Defendants warned of
concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and
were already negatively affecting RMO's business, operations and
prospects, (iii) RMO did not have the battery cell inventory to
accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021, (iv)
RMO's supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo's revenue
growth, and (v) RMO's supply chain for battery cells was not
hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just two
battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021
inventory, and that RMO failed to disclose these material facts to
investors.
If you are a RMO investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]
COLORADO: Inmates' Class Suit Against Governor Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Ashby that a class action lawsuit filed against Gov. Jared
Polis by inmates last year can go forward, the Colorado Court of
Appeals ruled.
In the lawsuit filed in Denver District Court in May 2020, five
current or former inmates of the Colorado Department of Corrections
filed suit against the governor as the chief executive of the state
alleging that the state failed to protect medically vulnerable
prisoners from the threat of the coronavirus.
Over the course of the pandemic, numerous inmates at several
correctional facilities have contracted the virus, some even
dying.
A Denver district judge, however, tossed out the lawsuit on grounds
that the governor was not a proper defendant and that the
separations of power doctrine in the Colorado Constitution doesn't
give the courts jurisdiction to hear such a case.
The Polis administration argued at the district court level that
the governor should not be the subject of such a suit because he
does not manage the day-to-day operations of any of the Department
of Corrections facilities.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court, however, rejected those
grounds, saying Polis is the proper defendant because he ultimately
is in charge of all state agencies, and the courts do have
jurisdiction to decide a constitutional claim.
The trial court made its ruling in February, about five weeks
before the Colorado Supreme Court decided the matter of when a
governor can be named in such class action suits filed against the
state.
In that case, which was appealed to the high court by the Polis
administration, the state's seven justices unanimously ruled in a
suit involving transgender inmates that a governor oversees the
state's executive agencies, and therefore is a proper defendant.
"Because the governor 'has final authority to order the executive
directors of all state agencies to commence or cease any action on
behalf of the state' . . . the governor had appropriately been
named as a defendant in this type of action on many occasions,"
Justice Melissa Hart wrote. "As these cases demonstrate, because he
is the state's 'supreme executive' with ultimate authority over the
executive agencies under his control, the governor is an
appropriate defendant in an action that seeks to 'enjoin or mandate
enforcement of a statute, regulation, ordinance or policy.' "
Both cases have been remanded back to district court. [GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: IPO Documents "Misleading," Asmat Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERTO ASMAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTEXTLOGIC INC., PIOTR SZULCZEWSKI, RAJAT
BAHRI, BRETT JUST, JULIE BRADLEY, ARI EMANUEL, JOE LONSDALE,
TANZEEN SYED, STEPHANIE TILENIUS, HANS TUNG, and JACQUELINE RESES,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05015 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the ContextLogic's business,
operational and compliance policies in order to artificially
inflate prices of ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020
and May 12, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose
that: (i) ContextLogic's Q4 2020 monthly active users (MAUs) had
declined materially and were not then growing; (ii) accordingly,
ContextLogic had materially overstated the company's business
metrics and financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the
company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
The truth made known to the public after ContextLogic announced its
Q4 2020 financial results and Q1 2021 financial results.
ContextLogic's stock price fell $1.83 per share, or 10%, to close
at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021. Further, stock price fell
$3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13,
2021, says the suit.
ContextLogic Inc. is a provider of e-commerce services, with
principal executive offices located at One Sansome Street 40th
Floor, San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and –
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
CST CONSULTANTS: Suit May Help Quebecers Recoup Enrolment Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederic Tomesco, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a
recently approved class-action lawsuit could allow thousands of
Quebecers to recoup most of the fees they paid for setting up
savings plans aimed at financing their children's education.
Montrealer Qing Wang filed the suit in 2018 after being charged
$11,720 in fees when he sought to terminate his children's
registered education savings plans and transfer them to a bank. The
fees represented 59 per cent of the $20,000 he had contributed to
the RESPs.
"I decided to leave the RESP because I realized it was a trap and I
wanted to stop further losses," Wang told the Montreal Gazette in a
statement issued through his lawyer. "It seemed salespeople were
more focused on maximizing sales than on preserving capital and
generating respectable returns. Their focus is volume. Once
somebody chooses a group RESP, you're stuck with the charges and
you're stuck with the plan for 18 years."
Wang's case rests on a Quebec law known as Regulation No. 15, which
governs scholarship or educational plan prospectuses. It caps the
fees charged for each plan at $200, including the commissions of
the distributor and its salesmen.
In a judgment issued this spring, Quebec Superior Court Judge
Martin Sheehan authorized the class action to proceed against six
Canadian distributors of group RESPs. The defendants include Quebec
City-based Kaleido Growth Inc., which was previously known as
Universitas, and five Ontario-based firms: CST Consultants Inc.,
Children's Education Funds Inc., Global RESP Corp., Heritage
Education Funds Inc. and Knowledge First Financial Inc.
Based on publicly available data, the case could "easily affect
several hundred thousand people in Quebec," representing damages of
"several hundred million dollars," Wang's Montreal-based lawyer,
Joey Zukran, said in an interview.
"The class action highlights the sheer amount of fees that people
can be paying," said Gail Henderson, an associate dean and
professor at Queen's University's law faculty who closely follows
RESPs.
Allegations of excessive fees made against CST and other RESP
providers in Quebec are "unfounded" and "without merit," Peter
Lewis, chief revenue officer at CST, said in an emailed statement.
"This case targets six RESP plan providers in Quebec and disputes
an industry-wide, accepted fee structure that has been in place at
least since 1979 and approved by regulators," Lewis added.
Kaleido Growth also denies the allegations "and we intend to
challenge them," Patrick Pedneault, a spokesperson, said via
email.
Knowledge First says all its RESP plans are offered by prospectus
and are reviewed annually by provincial and federal governing
bodies such as Quebec's Autorite des marches financiers, the
Ontario Securities Commission and the Canadian Securities
Administrators.
"While we cannot fully comment on active litigation, we welcome the
proceedings and have the utmost respect for the court's process as
well as the securities laws that govern our industry and the
country as a whole," Jacques Naud, Knowledge First's senior
vice-president of sales and distribution, said in an emailed
statement.
Wang and his family immigrated to Montreal from China in February
2015, legal documents show. Three days after arriving in the city,
he set up group RESPs with CST for his two children and agreed to
make monthly contributions.
It was his landlord, a scholarship plan agent for CST, who
introduced him to the RESP concept and sold him on the idea of
investing, according to the documents. Wang made the decision after
a 60-minute meeting. [GN]
CVS CAREMARK: Fails to Properly Pay Pharmacists, Esfandiari Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MASOUMEH ESFANDIARI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION (CVS
Pharmacy) and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV24168 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 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 pay wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
termination, failure to furnish itemized wage statements, unfair
competition, discrimination, retaliation, failure to take
corrective action, and wrongful termination.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
pharmacist in Los Angeles County, California from March 12, 2006
until August 12, 2020.
CVS Caremark Corporation is an American healthcare company,
headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley C. Gage, Esq.
Terry M. Goldberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & GAGE
23002 Victory Boulevard
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 340-9252
Facsimile: (818) 340-9088
E-mail: Bgage@goldbergandgage.com
- and –
Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
2 Venture, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 240-8595
Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net
CVS PHARMACY: Cleared of US$121M Charges in Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Brater, Esq., Mattie Gibbons, Esq. and D. Jacques Smith,
Esq., of Arent Fox, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June
23, 2021, CVS Pharmacy Inc. was cleared of claims of overcharging
drug purchasers by more than $121 million for general drugs. This
verdict comes after a week-long trial in the Northern District of
California beginning June 7, 2021.
CVS Pharmacy Cleared of $121M Charges in Class Action Fraud Suit
On June 23, 2021, CVS Pharmacy Inc. was cleared of claims of
overcharging drug purchasers by more than $121 million for general
drugs. This verdict comes after a week-long trial in the Northern
District of California beginning June 7, 2021. The jury deliberated
for less than a day and unanimously cleared CVS of the alleged
violations of six state consumer protection statutes.
A group of 11 single-state classes of insured patients brought this
consumer putative class lawsuit alleging nineteen causes of action
for fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and violation of consumer protection laws in twelve
states and the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs alleged that CVS
misrepresented the "usual and customary" prices of certain generic
drugs by failing to report the lower prices CVS charged to members
of its "Health Savings Pass" program to third-party insurance
providers and pharmacy benefit managers. Pharmacy benefit manager
executives testified that their contracts with CVS did not require
CVS to report discounts under the Health Savings Pass program.
The case is Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation, Case Number
4:15-cv-03504, in the Northern District of California.
Cayman Islands-Based Fund Charged With $106M Fraud
On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed
a complaint in the Southern District of New York against a Cayman
Islands-based mutual fund and its founders, alleging that they
moved $102 million into shell companies for personal use. The
complaint also alleges that the founders of the fund refused to
honor redemption demands of investors of approximately $106
million, and instead misappropriated those assets into an
inaccessible brokerage account.
According to the complaint, the individual defendants and the fund
misappropriated investor funds through fraudulent conduct,
including creating shell companies, diverting assets to the shell
companies in uncollateralized loan transactions violating the
requirements of the fund prospectus, and submitting false
statements of material fact to investors to cover their alleged
misconduct.
The individual defendants and the fund were charged with four
counts of wire fraud and violations of the Securities and Exchange
Act for the alleged conduct. As the individual exercising control
over the fund, one defendant was also charged with a claim for
control-persons liability.
The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abarbanel et al.
and the complaint can be found here.
Televangelist's COVID Cure Claims Cost $156K in Restitution
On June 23, 2021, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced
a consent judgment against a televangelist and his company
Morningside Church Productions Inc. requiring up to $156,000 in
restitution. The consent judgment resolves claims that the
defendant marketed "Silver Solution" as a cure for Covid-19 in
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, which
prohibits false or misleading claims in connection with the offer
or sale of merchandise.
In March of 2020, the Missouri Attorney General's Office filed suit
against Bakker and Morningside Church Productions, after seeing an
advertisement from Bakker's show claiming that the "Silver
Solution" product was able to cure Covid-19. Under the consent
judgment, Bakker cannot sell or advertise "Silver Solution" as a
way to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease or illness. Bakker will
pay up to $115,766 to Missouri residents who purchased the product,
and if less than that sum is paid, the difference between the
refunds and $90,000 must be paid to the Merchandising Practices
Revolving Fund. Between all required payments, the total will be up
to $156,000. [GN]
DR. REDDY'S: Alleged Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend three Overarching Conspiracy alleged class
action suits.
In June 2018, three class action complaints were filed in the
MDL-2724 by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Indirect Resellers
Plaintiffs and End Payor Plaintiffs classes.
All three complaints allege conspiracies in restraint of trade in
violation of Sections 1 of the Sherman Act, and violations of
thirty-one State antitrust statutes and consumer protection
statutes, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment seeking
injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages, punitive damages,
attorney's fees and costs against all named defendants on a joint
and several basis.
They allege an "overarching conspiracy" among the named defendants
involving fifteen drugs and, with slight variations, name
approximately twenty-five generic pharmaceutical manufacturers
including the Company's U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Inc.
The drug-specific allegations against the Company's U.S. subsidiary
involve two of the fifteen drugs, meprobamate and zoledronic acid.
Plaintiffs also allege that the Company's U.S. subsidiary (as well
as all other manufacturers named) were part of a larger
"overarching conspiracy" as to all of the drugs named in the
complaints.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1, and violations of thirty-one States' antitrust
statutes and consumer protection statutes, and asserts claims of
unjust enrichment.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages,
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all named
defendants on a joint and several basis.
The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.
DR. REDDY'S: Awaits Final Approval of Namenda Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company awaits
final court approval of the settlement agreement in the class
action suit related to Namenda(R).
In August 2015, Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund
filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. Sergeants alleged that
certain parties, including the Company, violated federal antitrust
laws as a consequence of having settled patent litigation related
to the Alzheimer's drug Namenda(R) (memantine) tablets during a
period from about 2009 until 2010. Sergeants seeks to represent a
class of "end payor" purchasers of Namenda(R) tablets (i.e.,
insurers, other third-party payors and consumers).
Sergeants seeks damages based upon an allegation made in the
complaint that the defendants entered into patent settlements
regarding Namenda(R) tablets for the purpose of delaying generic
competition and facilitating the brand innovator's attempt to shift
sales from the original immediate release product to the more
recently introduced extended release product.
On August 23, 2020, the Company and certain other defendants
entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement calls
for the dismissal with prejudice of the claims brought by the
plaintiff on behalf of the putative class, in exchange for the
payment of U.S.$0.4. The Company paid that amount into escrow.
The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 5, 2020.
The settlement agreement is contingent upon final court approval.
The settlement agreement explicitly disclaims any liability or
wrongdoing.
Following the settlement agreement, the Company recognized such
amount in the income statement for the three months ended September
30, 2020.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.
DR. REDDY'S: Canadian Consumer Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by an individual
consumer in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada.
On June 3, 2020, a Class Action Statement of Claim was filed by an
individual consumer in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada, against
the Company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries and 52 other generic
drug companies.
The Statement of Claim alleges an industry-wide, overarching
conspiracy to violate Sections 45 and 46 of the Canadian
Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices,
and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada. The action is
brought on behalf of a class of all persons, from January 1, 2012
to the present, who purchased generic drugs in the private sector.
The Statement of Claim states that it seeks damages against all
defendants on a joint and several basis, attorney's fees and costs
of investigation and prosecution. An Amended Statement of Claim was
served on the Company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries on January
15, 2021 and adds an additional 20 generic drug companies.
The Amended Statement of Claim also removes the identification of
defendant companies with conspiracy allegations regarding specific
generic drugs and alleges a conspiracy to allocate the North
America Market as to all generic drugs in Canada.
The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.
Dr. Reddy's said, "Any liability that may arise on account of this
claim is unascertainable. Accordingly, no provision was made in
these consolidated financial statements of the Company."
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.
DR. REDDY'S: Divalproex Antitrust Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend the Divalproex Antitrust Class Action.
Since November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints on behalf
of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs and
End Payor Plaintiffs classes were filed against the Company's U.S.
subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., and a number of other
pharmaceutical defendants in the United States District Court for
the District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company's U.S.
subsidiary and the other named defendants have engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and customers in the
sale of divalproex ER tablets in the United States.
The actions allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, and of state consumer protection and antitrust
laws, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment, under a total of
thirty-one States and the District of Columbia. The actions seek
injunctive relief and recovery of treble damages, punitive damages,
plus attorney's fees and costs, on a joint and several basis, on
behalf of the plaintiff classes. The Company denies any wrongdoing
and intends to vigorously defend against these class action
claims.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.
DR. REDDY'S: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit pending before
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On August 25, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The Company's Co-Chairman, its Chief Operating Officer, and Dr.
Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., were also subsequently named as
defendants in the case. The operative complaint alleges that the
Company made false or misleading statements or omissions in its
public filings, in violation of U.S. federal securities laws, and
that the Company's share price dropped and its investors were
affected.
On May 9, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
On June 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss and, on July 25, 2018, a further reply in support of the
motion to dismiss was filed by the Company. In August 2018, oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard by the Court.
On March 21, 2019, the District Court issued its decision granting
in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.
Pursuant to that decision, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs
claims with respect to seventeen out of the twenty-two alleged
misstatements and omissions.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 31 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against DraftKings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DKNG) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings publicly
traded securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 31,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report addressing DraftKings, alleging that the Company's merger
with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming.
Citing "conversations with multiple former employees, a review of
SEC and international filings, and inspection of back-end
infrastructure at illicit international gaming websites,"
Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and ongoing record of
operating in black markets," estimating that 50% of SBTech's
revenue is from markets where gambling is banned."
Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock
price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share
on June 15, 2021.
DraftKings operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company in the U.S. It operates through two segments,
Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business. The Company provides
users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming opportunities.
It is also involved in the design, development, and licensing of
sports betting and casino gaming platform software for online and
retail sportsbook, and casino gaming products. The Company
distributes its product offerings through various channels,
including traditional websites, direct app downloads, and
direct-to-consumer digital platforms.
DraftKings was incorporated in Nevada as DEAC NV Merger Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of its legal predecessor, DEAC, a special
purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. On April 23, 2020, DEAC
consummated transactions contemplated by a Business Combination
Agreement (the "Business Combination") dated December 22, 2019, as
amended on April 7, 2020, and, in connection therewith, (i) DEAC
merged with and into the Company, whereby the Company survived the
merger and became the successor issuer to DEAC, (ii) the Company
changed its name to "DraftKings Inc.," (iii) the Company acquired
DraftKings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Old DK"), by way of a
merger, and (iv) the Company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited ("SBTech").
Upon Case 1:21-cv-05739 Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 34 3
consummation of the preceding transactions, Old DK and SBTech
became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company.
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) SBTech had a history of
unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with
SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming;
(iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal
risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the
benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings shares and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 31 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp.
("DEAC", "DraftKings", or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DKNG) and certain
of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 21-cv-05739, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired DraftKings securities between December 23, 2019
and June 15, 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 DraftKings securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 31, 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.
DraftKings operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming
company in the U.S. It operates through two segments,
Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business. The Company provides
users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming opportunities.
It is also involved in the design, development, and licensing of
sports betting and casino gaming platform software for online and
retail sportsbook, and casino gaming products. The Company
distributes its product offerings through various channels,
including traditional websites, direct app downloads, and
direct-to-consumer digital platforms.
DraftKings was incorporated in Nevada as DEAC NV Merger Corp., a
wholly owned subsidiary of its legal predecessor, DEAC, a special
purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. On April 23, 2020, DEAC
consummated transactions contemplated by a Business Combination
Agreement (the "Business Combination") dated December 22, 2019, as
amended on April 7, 2020, and, in connection therewith, (i) DEAC
merged with and into the Company, whereby the Company survived the
merger and became the successor issuer to DEAC, (ii) the Company
changed its name to "DraftKings Inc.," (iii) the Company acquired
DraftKings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Old DK"), by way of a
merger, and (iv) the Company acquired all of the issued and
outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited ("SBTech").
Upon consummation of the preceding transactions, Old DK and SBTech
became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company.
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) SBTech had a history of
unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with
SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming;
(iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal
risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the
benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report addressing DraftKings, alleging that the Company's merger
with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming.
Citing "conversations with multiple former employees, a review of
Securities and Exchange Commission and international filings, and
inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international
gaming websites," Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and
ongoing record of operating in black markets," estimating that 50%
of SBTech's revenue is from markets where gambling is banned."
Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock
price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share
on June 15, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN]
ENSITE USA: Faces Albert Suit Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORRIS ALBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00418-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 28, 2021) brings this complaint
as a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover untimely
wage compensation, unpaid overtime, and other damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Electrical
Inspector from in or around April 29, 2016 through October 15, 2018
in Kentucky, Ohio and Texas.
The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay him and other
similarly situated inspectors 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 workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid
them their daily rate only regardless of the number of hours they
worked in a week. In addition, the Defendant willfully failed to
record all of the time that the Plaintiff and other inspectors have
worked for the benefits of the Defendant, the Plaintiff says.
Ensite USA, Inc. provides pipeline management services to companies
in the oil and energy industry across the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty St., 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 300-0375
Fax: (212) 481-1333
EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Class Action Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lang Jr., Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that on June 3, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals affirmed, with one caveat, the Northern District of
Georgia's approval of the settlement of the consolidated class
actions against Equifax Inc. and its affiliates arising from the
2017 data privacy breach. The district court described the parties'
settlement as "the largest and most comprehensive recovery in a
data breach case in U.S. history by several orders of magnitude."
Notably, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, and the attorneys general for 48 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico all supported the
settlement.
The one caveat the panel announced was that the incentive awards
for the class representatives that were approved by the district
court ran afoul of Johnson v. NPAS Solutions LLC. The panel
otherwise affirmed in all other respects and remanded solely for
the incentive awards to be vacated.
The Eleventh Circuit's decision resolved five consolidated appeals
by six objectors. The various objectors raised a slew of issues.
Among them, the objectors challenged Article III jurisdiction as
wells as the district court's decisions approving the class action
settlement, certifying the settlement class, and awarding
attorneys' fees and expenses. The panel rejected and dispensed with
all of these arguments in turn. The affirmance and the panel's
resolution of those issues have been widely reported. Less widely
reported, however, are the panel's interesting discussions of the
objectors' challenges to the requirements the district court
imposed on them for filing objections, the district court's process
for adopting its final order, and the appeal bonds imposed by the
district court.
Requirements for Objections
Objector Davis challenged certain administrative requirements the
district court placed on class members who wished to object:
* Each objection had to include the objector's name and address;
the objector's personal signature; the grounds for the objection;
previous objections in recent class actions; and dates on which the
objector was available to be deposed.
* In addition, if the objector had counsel who intended to speak
at the fairness hearing, the objection needed to include the legal
and factual basis for the objection and the evidence to be offered
at the hearing.
* And, if the objector had counsel who sought compensation from
anyone other than the objector, the objection needed to include
counsel's previous objections in recent class actions, counsel's
experience in class action litigation, and information on the fees
sought.
Objector Davis argued that these requirements deterred objections
and limited the ability of objectors to be heard. The panel
rejected these contentions and concluded that Objector Davis failed
to establish an abuse of discretion. Specifically, the panel
explained as follows:
The District Court explicitly imposed the requirements outlined
here, not to deter objections or for some arbitrary purpose, but
for the express purpose of avoiding a "chaotic process" in
evaluating the objections. The District Court said it found these
requirements help "expose objections that are lawyer-driven and
filed with ulterior motives." The District Court was well within
its broad discretion to impose the requirements for these stated
purposes.
"Ghostwritten" Order
The panel then turned to an insightful discussion of so-called
ghostwritten orders. Because the proposed final order submitted by
plaintiffs' class counsel was not included in the record on appeal,
the panel assumed that the district court adopted the proposed
order in whole without changes: "The Objectors ask us to assume
that the District Court adopted the proposed order in full, and
Plaintiffs and Equifax don't ask us to do otherwise. For the
purposes of our review, we therefore assume the District Court
adopted the proposed order verbatim." Objectors Frank and West
asserted that the district court erred in adopting a proposed order
"ghostwritten" by plaintiffs' counsel.
The panel acknowledged that the Eleventh Circuit has "repeatedly
condemned the ghostwriting of judicial orders by litigants." "When
such a practice is permitted, the drafting party has an
'overwhelming' 'temptation to overreach and exaggerate.'" The panel
likewise acknowledged that the "quality of judicial decisionmaking
suffers when a judge delegates the drafting of orders to a party"
and that "the writing process requires a judge to wrestle with the
difficult issues before him and thereby leads to stronger, sounder
judicial rulings."
Notwithstanding, the Eleventh Circuit has not adopted a per se rule
that disallows this practice. In this case, the panel determined
that "the process by which the District Court adopted the proposed
order was not fundamentally unfair." It explained:
Mr. Frank and Mr. West both had ample opportunity to present their
arguments. Both lodged detailed written objections to the
settlement agreement. Both appeared through counsel at the final
hearing and presented arguments. And contrary to their assertions,
they did have an opportunity to respond to the order. After the
District Court adopted the proposed order, Mr. West moved to amend
it. And it's not as if these opportunities to present their
arguments were hollow procedures; the District Court heard from Mr.
Frank and Mr. West at the fairness hearing, considered their
written objections, and rejected their objections on the merits.
Ultimately, the District Court granted Mr. West's motion to amend
the order over Plaintiffs' objections and issued a revised order
based on West's arguments.
Ultimately, the panel emphasized that the district court "reached a
firm decision before ever directing Plaintiffs' counsel to draft a
proposed order" and "instructed that the order reach a particular
result and discuss specific points."
Appeal Bonds
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, the district court
imposed appeal bonds of $2,000 on each objector. Rule 7 states
that, "[i]n a civil case, the district court may require an
appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and
amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal."
Objectors Cochran and Frank asserted that the district court erred
in requiring appeal bonds. The panel rejected this assertion. It
pointed out that the "[t]he plain text of Rule 7 is clear" and
"says a district court may impose an appeal bond 'in any form and
amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal.'" Although
it acknowledged, without deciding, that some of the reasons given
by the district court for imposing the appeal bond might be
irrelevant under Rule 7, the district court did make the finding
that matters:
Although the District Court considered other factors that may not
be relevant, we need not ultimately decide this issue of relevance
under Rule 7 because the record indicates the District Court
independently imposed the appeal bonds based on a proper factor.
Specifically, the District Court found that the "substantial risk"
of nonpayment "warrant[ed] an appeal bond." The District Court did
not therefore abuse its discretion when it imposed the appeal bonds
based on its finding that there was a "substantial risk that the
costs of appeal will not be paid unless a bond is required."
In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No.
20-10249 (11th Cir. June 3, 2021). [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rouse Files FCRA Suit in D. Utah
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information
Services. The case is styled as Camryn Rouse, Ryan Brady,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Equifax Information Services, Case No. 4:21-cv-00073-DN (D. Utah,
July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Equifax Information Services LLC --
https://www.equifax.com/personal/ -- provides data solutions. The
Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 900-1288
Email: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
- and -
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW GROUP
290 25th St., Ste. 102
Ogden, UT 84401
Phone: (801) 392-9324
Email: therondmorrison@gmail.com
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Shen May Replead Securities Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as BO SHEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. EXELA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-0691-D
(N.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss
but also permits the Plaintiffs to replead.
In this putative class action alleging claims for securities fraud
and control person liability under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5"), 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, the Court must decide whether the
Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim under the heightened
pleading standards of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. Concluding that they have not,
the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss but also permits
the Plaintiffs to replead.
Lead plaintiffs Insur Shamgunov and Elena Shamgunova (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") bring this putative class action against Defendants
Exela Technologies, Inc. ("Exela"), Ronald Cogburn ("Cogburn"),
James G. Reynolds ("Reynolds"), and Par Chadha ("Chadha"). The
Plaintiffs allege in their amended class action complaint
("complaint") that all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that
Cogburn, Reynolds, and Chadha are liable as control persons under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs sue "on behalf of
persons or entities who or which purchased or acquired Exela
securities between March 16, 2018 and March 16, 2020, inclusive
(the 'Class Period') and who were damaged thereby."
Exela is a global business process automation provider that
combines industry-specific and multi-industry enterprise software
and solutions worldwide. It was formed in July 2017 when two
companies, SourceHOV2 and Novitex Holding, Inc. ("Novitex"), merged
into a special purpose acquisition company, Quinpario Acquisition
Corp. ("Quinpario"), which then became Exela (the "Business
Combination"). As a result of the preliminary merger and Business
Combination, Quinpario (later re-named Exela) became the parent
company of SourceHOV and Novitex.
Prior to the Business Combination, SourceHOV bought out the
minority interest of one of SourceHOV's minority shareholders,
Manichaean Capital, LLC ("Manichaean"), at a price of $1,600 per
share. In September 2017, Manichaean, suspecting that it had
received inadequate consideration for its minority interest,
petitioned the Delaware Court of Chancery ("Chancery Court") for an
appraisal determination ("Appraisal Action"). The Chancery Court
heard testimony in June 2019 and found on Jan. 30, 2020, that, as
of the closing date, the fair value of SourceHOV was $4,591.00 per
share. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Chancery Court's
judgment on Jan. 22, 2021, after the instant lawsuit was filed. See
SourceHOV Holdings, Inc. v. Manichaean Cap., LLC, 246 A.3d 139,
2021 WL 225817, at *1 (Del. Jan. 22, 2021) (unpublished table
decision).
According to the Plaintiffs' complaint, the truth about Exela's
financial condition--including previously-concealed risks that had
partially materialized--was revealed to the market through a series
of disclosures between Nov. 8, 2018, and March 16, 2020, causing
Exela's stock to fall from $6.24 per share on the day before the
first alleged Class Period drop on Nov. 8, 2018, to just $0.15 per
share on March 18, 2020, the day after the last day in the Class
Period.
On March 17, 2020, Exela filed a Form 8-K in which it acknowledged
that liability relating to the Appraisal Action should have been
recorded in September 2017 at the fair value of the shares
tendered, but was not. Accordingly, in early 2020 Exela re-issued
its financial statements for 2017, 2018, and the interim periods
through Sept. 30, 2019, to record liabilities ranging from $37.8 to
$43.1 million for the periods ending Dec. 31, 2017, 2018, and
2019.
On March 23, 2020, this putative class action was filed against
Exela; Cogburn, who served as the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
of Exela and a member of Exela's Board of Directors throughout the
Class period; Reynolds, who served as Exela's Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") throughout the Class Period; and Chadha, who was
Chairman of Exela's Board of Directors and was Co-Chariman of the
Board and principal stockholder of SourceHOV prior to the Business
Combination.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable for securities
fraud under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on four
categories of misstatements:
(1) first, that Exela's financial statements for the annual
periods ending 2017, 2018, and three quarterly statements
in 2019 were admittedly materially false and misleading as
a result of the Defendants' omission of a known litigation
liability, i.e., the Appraisal Action;
(2) second, that the Defendants falsely assured the market as
to the predictability of Exela's revenue, stating that the
Company had 90% visibility due to recurring contracts
when, in fact, the Defendants never had such visibility
because at least 20% of Exela's revenues came from
unpredictable postage revenue;
(3) third, that the Defendants misleadingly touted adjusted
EBITDA figures ("Adjusted EBITDA"), engaging in
"accounting shenanigans" that added back supposedly
non-routine expenses when, in fact, the expenses were
routine, recurring expenses, improperly added back into
EBITDA, with the effect of misleadingly showing higher
profits; and
(4) fourth, that the Defendants misleadingly touted Exela's
supposed success in expanding customer margins by
implementing automation and digital transformation, only
to reveal later that there was no chance to expand margins
for a substantial number of Exela's customers.
The Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' action. The Court heard
oral argument.
Senior District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater notes that because the
complaint alleges fraud, the Plaintiffs must plead the elements of
their claim with the heightened particularity required by Rule
9(b), citing Coates v. Heartland Wireless Commc'ns, Inc., 26
F.Supp.2d 910, 914 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (Fitzwater, J.).
Judge Fitzwater holds that to the extent that the Plaintiffs base
their claim on allegations that Exela did not adequately disclose
the existence of the Appraisal Action, or that Exela's
representations regarding the Appraisal Action were false or
misleading, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly plead a claim. He adds that the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly pleaded a securities fraud claim based on the statement
that Exela was unable to estimate any loss or range of loss that
may arise from the Appraisal Action.
As a threshold matter, it is notable that the complaint does not
actually plead that Exela's statement that it was unable to
estimate any loss or range of loss was false or misleading, Judge
Fitzwater states. Nor does the complaint allege any facts regarding
the liability estimates of Exela's expert in the Appraisal Action.
Regardless, and more important, Judge Fitzwater holds, the mere
fact that Exela's expert estimated Exela's liability does not
permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that, at the time
of the relevant SEC filings, any Defendant was able to estimate any
loss or range of loss that might actually arise from the Appraisal
Action, such that the Defendants' statement that they could not
provide this estimate was false or misleading.
In fact, the complaint alleges that Exela "disagreed with its own
expert over which revenue projections to use in the DCF analysis
and ultimately separated from its expert with respect to
SourceHOV's fair value," Judge Fitzwater finds. In other words,
although Exela's expert may have provided a liability estimate, the
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any Defendant agreed
that the estimate was accurate or that any defendant was able to
independently predict whether, and in what amount, Exela would
ultimately be held liable in the Appraisal Action. The Court,
therefore, concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
plead that Exela's representations regarding the Appraisal Action
were false or misleading.
To the extent the Plaintiffs allege that Exela violated the
securities laws by "failing to record liability for the shares at
issue in the Appraisal Litigation since 2017," and that, in doing
so, Exela "misrepresented its financial condition," the Court
grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that the
Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged scienter.
Judge Fitzwater opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
plead that, prior to the issuance of Exela's Form 8-K on March 17,
2020, any Defendant knew, or was severely reckless in not knowing,
that Exela's accounting practices with respect to the Appraisal
Action were in error.
Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claim to the extent it is
based on alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the
Appraisal Action.
To the extent the Plaintiffs base their Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
claim on the Defendants' statements regarding Exela's plan to
expand customer margins by implementing automation and digital
transformation, the Court holds that these statements fall within
the PSLRA's safe harbor provision.
Judge Fitzwater finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged that either Reynolds or Cogburn actually knew at the time
Exela's future plans to pursue its business process automation
platforms within its existing customer base were described to
investors that a significant number of Exela's customers (i.e.,
enough to make the representations false or misleading) had no path
to automation or digital transformation. That Cogburn "tracked and
reported the Company's progress in expanding margins," is
insufficient of itself to allege "actual knowledge" under the
PSLRA.
Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs do not point to any other
allegations that, at the time of the alleged misrepresentations,
the Defendant in question had actual knowledge that Exela would not
be able to expand customer margins by implementing automation and
digital transformation, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim based on forward-looking statements.
The Court also grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss to the
extent the Plaintiffs base their Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claim
on the Defendants' visibility or other forward-looking statements.
Judge Fitzwater holds that none of the Plaintiffs' alleged facts is
sufficient to permit the reasonable inference that Cogburn knew or
should have known during or before the March 2019 earnings call,
that Exela did not have 90% revenue visibility or that
approximately 20% of Exela's revenue for 2018 and 2019 came from
completely unpredictable postage and postage handling. Judge
Fitzwater adds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly alleged a violation of Regulation G because the
Defendants' disclosures relating to Adjusted EBITDA were not false
or misleading. They clearly explained how they calculated this
non-GAAP metric and adequately warned investors about its
limitations.
Even if the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Exela's Adjusted
EBITDA figures were false or misleading, the Court would still
grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim based
on Exela's Adjusted EBITDA figures because the Plaintiffs have not
plausibly pleaded a strong inference of scienter.
Because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead a primary
violation under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5,
the Court also dismisses the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim
against Reynolds, Cogburn, and Chadha.
Having granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court must
decide whether to allow the Plaintiffs to replead.
The Court's approach in cases decided under the PSLRA has been to
allow plaintiffs at least one opportunity to replead after the
Court has filed an opinion identifying defects in a complaint.
Additionally, at oral argument, the Plaintiffs' counsel stated
that, in preparing for the hearing, she had discovered a "massive
amount" of insider stock sales by Chadha. The Court does not
suggest that the information the Plaintiffs' counsel has in mind
will make a difference if included in a second amended complaint.
But the availability of such information does inform the Court's
decision whether to permit the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
Accordingly, the Court grant the Plaintiffs leave to file a second
amended complaint.
Judge Fitzwater ruled that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted. The Court grants the Plaintiffs 42 days from the date of
this memorandum opinion and order to file a second amended
complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
June 24, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3aw3s43m from
Leagle.com.
FITLIFE BRANDS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitlife Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Fitlife Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05697 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
FitLife Brands -- https://fitlifebrands.com/ -- is a leader in
sports nutrition & bodybuilding supplements featuring extraordinary
gains in healthy lean muscle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
FREEDOM CREDIT: Violates Repossession Notice in UCC, Ibeleme Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTINS IBELEME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No.
210602461 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 30, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Pennsylvania's
Uniform Commercial Code by failing to provide consumers with proper
notice of repossession and disposition of collateral.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant did not act in a
commercially reasonable manner toward the Plaintiff and the Class.
Freedom Credit Union is a chartered credit union with a principal
place of business at 626 Jacksonville Rd, Ste 250, Warminster,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs
FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
Narberth, PA 19072
Telephone: (610) 822-0782
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Hingston Sues Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HINGSTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS, INC. and
DAVID L. LUCCHINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11040 (D. Mass.,
June 22, 2021) alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class acquired
Frequency's common stock between November 16, 2020 and March 22,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Frequency has conducted
multiple clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of
FX-322, the most significant of which was a Phase 2a trial, which
began in October 2019.
Shortly thereafter, the Defendants learned that the Company's Phase
2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as
the results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and
the placebo. Despite the disappointing results, the Company
continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These
statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated
the value of Frequency's common stock, the suit says.
Seizing on the Company's artificially high share price, in April
2020 Defendant Lucchino began selling his shares of Frequency,
initially dumping between 10,000 and 20,000 shares—earning
hundreds of thousands of dollars—each month and then increasing
the number of sales to 60,000 to 80,000 shares—earning millions
of dollars—each month as Frequency's deadline for releasing the
disastrous Phase 2a results drew near. All told, Lucchino sold over
350,000 shares and earned over $10.5 million.
Upon revelation of the disastrous results before the market opened
on March 23, 2021, Frequency's shares fell from $36.29 to $7.99, a
78% drop, and a loss of approximately $955 million in the Company's
market capitalization, added the suit.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company.
The Company focuses on developing small molecule therapeutics that
activates progenitor cells within the body to treat degenerative
diseases. It offers FX-322, a potential disease modifying therapy
designed to regenerate auditory hair cells to improve hearing
function. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen DeValerio, Esq.
Daryl Andrews, Esq.
ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
P.O. Box 67101
Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
Telephone: (617) 999-6473
E-mail: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com
glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
-and-
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
-and-
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 29 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Frequency
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ) alleging that the Company
violated federal securities laws.
Class Period: November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in FREQ:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17213&from=5
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. NEWS - FREQ NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's
Phase 2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's
expectations as the results revealed no discernable difference
between FX-322 and the placebo. In spite of the disappointing
results, the Company continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while
releasing positive statements in earnings calls, press releases,
SEC filings, and pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's
potential. These statements materially misled the market and
artificially inflated the value of Frequency's common stock.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Frequency Therapeutics you have until August 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.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Frequency Therapeutics securities
during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the FREQ lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. 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]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 29 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency Therapeutics")
(NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17219&wire=5
Allegations against FREQ include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
the Company's Phase 2a trial results failed to live up to the
Company's expectations as the results revealed no discernable
difference between FX-322 and the placebo. In spite of the
disappointing results, the Company continued to conduct the Phase
2a study while releasing positive statements in earnings calls,
press releases, SEC filings, and pharmaceutical presentations about
FX-322's potential. These statements materially misled the market
and artificially inflated the value of Frequency's common stock.
If you suffered a loss in Frequency Therapeutics you have until
August 2, 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]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bryan Cave Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
John Bielema, Esq., Michael Carey, Esq., Heather Goldman, Esq.,
Jonathan Potts, Esq., and Eric Rieder, Esq., of Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a closely
followed case concerning class certification in securities fraud
class actions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that the generic
nature of a company's statements should be considered in
determining whether such statements had an impact on the company's
stock price. The Court also held that in opposing class
certification, a securities fraud defendant bears the burden of
showing that an alleged misstatement had no effect on the company's
stock price.
The decision came in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers Retirement
System, a securities fraud action which arose out of the 2008
financial crisis. In 2010, Goldman Sachs shareholders brought an
action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Goldman Sachs
maintained an inflated stock price between 2006 and 2010 by making
material misstatements about its conflict of interest policies and
practices.
After Goldman Sachs unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the case,
plaintiffs moved to certify a class under the fraud-on-the-market
theory previously adopted by the Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson,
485 U.S. 224 (1988). Under that theory, securities fraud plaintiffs
seeking to certify a class do not need to demonstrate individual
reliance on a defendant's misstatements, based on the presumption
that the market price reflected consideration of all material
information. Once a plaintiff makes a showing that he or she is
entitled to the Basic presumption, a defendant can rebut the
presumption by demonstrating that the alleged misstatements had no
effect on the company's stock price.
Thus, the ability of a defendant company or individual to rebut a
claim of stock-price impact is a crucial issue for class
certification.
After two visits to the Second Circuit on the issue of class
certification -- the District Court first certified the class, the
Second Circuit remanded for further consideration of Goldman Sachs'
evidence, the District Court certified the class again, and the
Second Circuit affirmed - the case reached the Supreme Court.
At issue were company statements such as "integrity and honesty are
at the heart of our business." Goldman Sachs contended these kinds
of statements were too generic to affect the stock price. And it
argued that in affirming class certification and rejecting
defendants' lack-of-price-impact arguments, the Second Circuit
erred in two ways: (1) by ignoring the generic nature of the
alleged misrepresentations in determining whether they affected the
stock price, and (2) by placing on the defendant the burden of
persuasion, rather than the lesser burden of producing some
evidence, to prove a lack of price impact at the class
certification stage.
On the second issue, the burden of proof, the Court rejected
Goldman Sachs' argument, and held that the defendant bore the
burden of persuasion on that point, though it emphasized that the
allocation of burden will rarely be determinative of the outcome of
a class certification motion.
On the first issue, generic statements, the Court did not adopt a
sweeping new legal principle, but instead noted that in briefing
and arguing the appeal, "the parties' dispute has largely
evaporated." Thus, it said, plaintiffs did not contend that courts
at the class certification stage were barred from considering the
generic nature of an alleged misstatement, but rather plaintiffs
agreed that the generic nature of a statement "often will be
important evidence of price impact," since general statements are
presumably less likely to influence stock buyers than more specific
ones. The Court further noted that both parties agreed that courts
could consider expert testimony and use their common sense in
deciding whether a generic statement had a price impact. In effect,
the Court said, there was nothing much on this issue for it to
decide.
But, the Court said, it was not clear from the Second Circuit's
opinions whether it had considered the generic nature of the
statements in holding that there was sufficient price impact to
support class certification under the fraud-on-the-market theory.
It therefore remanded the case, directing the Second Circuit to
"take into account all record evidence relevant to price impact
regardless whether that evidence overlaps with materiality or any
other merits issue."
The uncertainty about what the appeals court considered arises from
the fact that the generic nature of statements may also be relevant
to the issue of whether the statements are material, as is required
for liability under Section 10(b). The Court had held in an earlier
case, Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds,
568 U.S. 455 (2013), that plaintiffs seeking to invoke the
fraud-on-the-market theory for class certification did not need to
show materiality, which they did not have to prove until trial on
the merits of a case. That remains the law, but the Court in
Goldman Sachs made clear that just because the generic nature of
the statements would be relevant to the merits issue of
materiality, that does not mean a court at the class certification
stage should ignore the generic nature of the statements in
determining whether they affected the company's stock price.
The majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett elicited two
separate dissents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the
decision to send the case back to the Second Circuit, contending
that a fair reading of the Second Circuit's opinion showed that it
did consider the generic nature of the statements in reaching its
decision.
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented
from the Court's ruling on the burden of proof issue, contending
that "nothing in our prior decisions has ever placed a burden of
persuasion on the defendant with respect to any aspect of the
plaintiff's case." [GN]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. on June 28 disclosed that a class action
complaint was filed against GDRX alleging that at the time of the
IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and
would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription
medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly
compete with GDRX and that given GDRX's knowledge of Amazon's
intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, their
statements in the Registration Statement and during the Class
Period about GDRX's competitive position were materially false
and/or misleading when made.
If you are an GDRX investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
Lordstown Motors Corp. (NasdaqGS: RIDE)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was
filed against Lordstown alleging that the Company misled investors
by misrepresenting and omitting to disclose that: (i) the Company's
purported pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many of the would-be
customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked the means to
make such purchases and/or would not have credible demand for
Lordstown's Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has not been "on
track" to commence production of the Endurance in September 2021;
(iv) the first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle
bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you are a RIDE investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
Tricada, Inc. (NasdaqGS: TCDA)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint has
been filed against Tricada alleging that Tricada made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii)
accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not
accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
If you are an TCDA investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL)
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was
filed against XL alleging that, XL failed to disclose to investors:
(i) that XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their
sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales and backlog;
(ii) that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL featured were
inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (iii) that XL's
technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to
10% of fleet savings; (iv) that XL lacks the supply chain and
engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and
(v) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you are a XL investor, and would like additional information
about our investigation, please complete the Information Request
Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780
or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190
Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
Contact:
Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C.
Phone: 516-493-9780
Facsimile: 516-280-7376
Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: US Judge Affirms Voice Assistant Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anusuya Lahiri at Reuters reports that Federal judge Beth Labson
Freeman agreed to prosecute Alphabet Inc's (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ:
GOOGL) Google for allegedly recording private conversations of
people who accidentally triggered its voice-activated Voice
Assistant on their smartphones, Reuters reports.
The plaintiffs for the proposed class-action lawsuit challenged
Google's right to use their conversations for targeted advertising
when Google Assistant misperceived what they said as hot words,
known as "false accept."
Google failed to sufficiently explain to users that it will use
recordings made in the absence of manual activation or a hot word
utterance, Freeman acknowledged.
Google defended, saying plaintiffs failed to show that they were
harmed or broke any contractual guarantees. Google never promised
that the Assistant would activate when plaintiffs intend it to, the
company added.
The proposed lawsuit sought unspecified damages. [GN]
HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Consumer Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATESHA SMITH and MIRANDA FOGLE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00129, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 30,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03708-JS-AYS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act and other state consumer protection
statutes by advertising, labeling and marketing of its Earth's Best
Organics baby food products as organic, safe and healthy for
children when the products contain dangerous levels of heavy
metals.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tim Dollar, Esq.
DOLLAR, BURNS, BECKER & HERSHEWE, L.C.
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105-5194
Telephone: (816) 876-2600
Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com
HILCORP ENERGY: Underpays Gas Royalties, Carl Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ANNE CARL and ANDERSON WHITE, as Co-Trustees of the CARL/WHITE
TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-02133 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of lease.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of underpaying
royalties owed to the Plaintiff. Under the gas royalty clause of
their lease agreement, the Defendant is required to pay royalties
on gas, including casinghead gas, used off the premises or off
lease use of gas (OLUG). The Defendant concealed the systematic
underpayment of royalty from the Plaintiff and Class members by
falsely representing on the check stubs provided monthly to the
Plaintiff and the Class that the Defendant was paying royalty on
the full volume and value of production from their wells, when in
fact, it was not. As a result of the Defendant's alleged breaches,
the Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged through
underpayment of the actual royalty amounts due under the leases.
Hilcorp Energy Company is a privately held exploration and
production company based in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Allison B. Waters, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 West 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
awaters@midwest-law.com
HILL TO GROVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill to Grove, Inc.
The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Hill to Grove, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05700 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hill to Grove, Inc. doing business as Hope and Harmony Farms,
formerly known as Royal Oak Peanuts --
https://hopeandharmonyfarms.com/ -- is a small gourmet peanut
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Bensalem Sues Over Forced PIP Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------
BENSALEM LODGING ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY
FRANCHISING, LLC, SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. d/b/a
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP and IHG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02882 (E.D. Pa., June 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, accounting, and violation
of the Sherman Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent, and
anticompetitive practices of requiring their franchisees to use
certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the purchase of
virtually all goods and services necessary to maintain and to run a
hotel. The Defendants' forced exclusive use of certain chosen
vendors and suppliers imposes well above-market procurement costs
on HHF franchisees which include, but are not limited to, those
associated with its onerous and exorbitant Property Improvement
Plan (PIP). Franchisees are forced to frequently undertake
expensive renovations, remodeling and construction as part of the
PIP, and in so doing manipulates and shortens the warranty periods
on mandated products the franchisees must purchase, then the
Defendants disingenuously use this to justify PIP requirements as
purportedly necessary to meet brand standards when, in reality, the
Defendants' sole purpose is to maximize their kickbacks and
unjustifiably run up costs on their franchisees in bad faith, says
the suit.
Bensalem Lodging Associates LLC is a franchisee that owns and
operates a hotel located at 3327 Street Road in Bensalem,
Pennsylvania.
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC is a franchising affiliate of
Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG), headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.
Six Continents Hotels, Inc., doing business as Intercontinental
Hotels Group, is a hotel company, headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.
IHG Owners Association, Inc. is an association that represents the
owners and operators of IHG, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruth B. McFarland, Esq.
Bryan P. Winter, Esq.
WINTER MCFARLAND, LLC
205 McFarland Circle North
Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
Telephone: (205) 650-1400
Facsimile: (205) 650-1401
E-mail: ruth@winmclaw.com
bwinter@winmclaw.com
HOME POINT: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of August 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 29 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point Capital Inc. ("Home
Point" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMPT) common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's January 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO"). Home Point investors have until
August 20, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion.
In January 2021, Home Point conducted its IPO, selling 7.25 million
shares of common stock for $13.00 per share.
On May 6, 2021, Home Point announced financial results for the
first quarter of 2021, reporting revenue of $324.2 million, which
missed consensus estimates by $41.72 million.
On this news, Home Point's stock price fell $1.66, or 17.7%, to
close at $7.72 per share on May 6, 2021, significantly below the
IPO price.
The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker
partners would increase the Company's expenses dramatically; (2) as
a result of rising interest rates in 2021, the mortgage industry
was anticipating decreased gain-on-sale margins industry-wide, and
Home Point would be to the same competitive pressures; (3)
accordingly, Home Point had overstated its business and financial
prospects; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Home Point common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than August 20, 2021,
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you purchased Home Point securities,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007,
by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
HOME POINT: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Home
Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT) common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Home Point Capital's January 29, 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO") have until August 20, 2021 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit. The
case is captioned Windemuth v. Home Point Capital Inc., No.
21-cv-11457, and is assigned to Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the
Eastern District of Michigan. The Home Point Capital class action
lawsuit charges Home Point Capital and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Home Point Capital
class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights
regarding the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit, please visit
our website by clicking here or contact J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Home Point
Capital class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later
than August 20, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Home Point Capital class action lawsuit
alleges that Home Point Capital's offering documents made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Home Point Capital's aggressive expansion of its broker partners
would dramatically increase Home Point Capital's expenses; (ii) the
mortgage industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased
gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021
and Home Point Capital would be subject to the same competitive
pressures; (iii) accordingly, Home Point Capital had overstated its
business and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, Home Point
Capital's offering documents were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
On May 6, 2021, Home Point Capital issued a press release
announcing Home Point Capital's financial results for the first
quarter of 2021. Among other results, Home Point Capital reported
revenue of $324.2 million, missing consensus estimates by $41.72
million. On this news, Home Point Capital's stock price fell nearly
18%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Home Point
Capital common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Home Point
Capital's IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Home
Point Capital 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 Home Point Capital class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Home Point
Capital class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron
Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top
50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion
for investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by
any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]
HUMM KOMBUCHA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUMM KOMBUCHA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05472-GHW (June 22, 2021) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.hummkombucha.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the suit adds.
HUMM KOMBUCHA LLC produces non-alcoholic beverages. The Company
offers a range of kambucha drinks, as well as apparels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Battery Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 28, 2021, a new class action lawsuit was filed in
California court against Hyundai Motor America. The plaintiff, Mr.
Siamak Kermani, is represented by Wirtz Law APC, O'Connor Law
Group, and Reallaw APC.
The class action is on behalf of consumers throughout California,
claiming dangerous battery systems in their electric Hyundai
vehicles, caused by an electrical short inside the battery cell.
The defective batteries were produced by LG Energy Solutions, and
are at risk of catching on fire while charging, parked, and/or
driving. There is currently no fix available.
When Plaintiff and other potential Class Members have complained
about the defective and dangerous battery system, HMA refused to
remedy the issue and informed individual potential Class Members
that there was no true fix. Instead, potential Class Members,
including Plaintiff: (a) were provided with software "updates" that
did nothing to repair the defect; (b) were instructed to "have the
battery's state of charge limit lowered to 80% to mitigate the risk
of fire;" and (c) were advised not to park their vehicles indoors
without lowering the charge limit. Based on the manner and timing
in which recalls came into existence, HMA knew of this problem, its
pervasiveness, and lack of a proper fix for a significant amount of
time before the first recall was issued on or about October 13,
2020, and while Class Vehicles were being sold and leased to the
general public.
Kermani v. Hyundai Motor America Pl. Compl. 6:24.
Vehicles in the Class Action
"Class Vehicles" refer to the following:
* 2019-2020 Hyundai Kona Electric
* 2020 Hyundai Ioniq Electric
The class action seeks buy back refunds for the vehicles under
California's Lemon Law.
Attorney Richard Wirtz commented, "Unfortunately, this is the
second auto manufacturer in less than a year to sell electric cars
with defective battery systems that can catch on fire to California
consumers. The rush to market with new technology needs to be
tempered by the safety of our drivers and passengers. If auto
makers ignore safety and cannot promptly repair dangerously
defective cars to get them off the roads, then California's Lemon
Law is there to protect California buyers to get their money back."
About Co-Counsel
Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Michael Hassen, and Mr. Mark O'Connor are
experienced attorneys with decades of experience between them. They
specialize in consumer protection matters and have successfully
prosecuted scores of cases similar to this one.
Contact Information
Wirtz Law APC
4370 La Jolla Village Drive #800
San Diego, California 92122
(833) 469-5366
https://www.wirtzlaw.com [GN]
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $1.4 Million Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a small New York firm that represented ex-IBM
workers in a lawsuit that ascended to the nation's highest court
before settling for $4.75 million asked a New York federal court
for $1.4 million in fees for their work on the "unusual" case.
[GN]
JAMES KERR: Mathis Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Kerr, et a1.
The case is styled as Spencer Mathis, Jadan Fenstermaker,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employess v.
James Kerr, Julie Kerr, 5280 Solutions LLC, Dash Logistics LLC,
Accelroute LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00270-GKF-SH (N.D. Okla., July 1,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
5280 Solutions is a Microsoft® Gold Certified Partner and a
recognized leader in both the business automation and student loan
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb M Salmon, Esq.
AIZENMAN LAW GROUP
5800 E. Skelly Drive, Ste. 575
Tulsa, OK 74135
Phone: (918) 426-4878
Fax: (918) 513-6860
Email: caleb@aizenmanlaw.com
JUUL LABS: Agrees to Pay North Carolina to Settle Vaping Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Kaplan, writing for The New York Times, reports that Juul
Labs has agreed to pay North Carolina $40 million to settle the
first of a spate of lawsuits brought by states and localities
claiming the e-cigarette company's marketing practices fueled
widespread addiction to nicotine among young people and created a
new public health problem.
The settlement, which was announced on June 28, allows the company
to avoid a jury trial this summer as the Food and Drug
Administration is deciding whether its vaping products can stay on
the market.
The company had urgently sought the settlement, but the deal
removes just one of numerous legal actions pending against it.
Thirteen other states, including California, Massachusetts and New
York, as well as the District of Columbia, have filed similar
lawsuits. The central claim in each case is that Juul knew, or
should have known, that it was hooking teenagers on pods that
contained high levels of nicotine.
Nearly 2,000 other cases filed by cities, counties, school
districts and other plaintiffs in federal courts have been combined
into multi-district litigation overseen by a single federal judge,
similar to what's been done with cases against prescription opioid
makers, distributors and retailers.
Beyond the litigation, a group of 39 attorneys general from both
Republican- and Democratic-led states, led by Ken Paxton, the
attorney general of Texas, have been investigating Juul's marketing
and sales practices for over a year.
"For years, Juul targeted young people, including teens, with
highly addictive e-cigarettes," Josh Stein, the North Carolina
attorney general, who sued the company in May 2019, said in a
statement announcing the settlement. "It lit the spark and fanned
the flames of a vaping epidemic among our children -- one that you
can see in any high school in North Carolina."
But the company was able to reach the settlement deal without
admitting to the allegations, one of its chief goals in the face of
the other lawsuits and the F.D.A. review.
In Juul's statement, Joshua Raffel, a company spokesman, said:
"This settlement is consistent with our ongoing effort to reset our
company and its relationship with our stakeholders, as we continue
to combat underage usage and advance the opportunity for harm
reduction for adult smokers."
E-cigarettes and other vaping products were initially conceived to
be a less harmful alternative to combustible cigarettes, which are
linked to the deaths of about 480,000 people in the United States
each year. But Juul's sleek high-tech-looking device, advertised in
its 2015 launch with young, hip-looking people on billboards and in
social media, quickly caught on with teenagers and young adults who
had never smoked.
Over the next few years, e-cigarette use among high-school students
began to soar, and in 2018, the F.D.A. commissioner declared an
epidemic of teen vaping in the United States.
Although e-cigarettes do not contain the carcinogens that burning
tobacco creates, scientists and public health officials worry about
their potential health effects on young people. Some research shows
nicotine could impair the developing brain, for example, and
addiction to it could lead users to move to regular cigarettes,
some people fear.
Juul had urgently sought a settlement in the North Carolina trial,
which was set for July 12 and would have put Juul in court, dealing
with testimony from parents and children, while the F.D.A. was
deciding its fate, which must be done by early September.
The money, which will be paid out over six years, will be used to
fund programs that will help people quit e-cigarettes, prevent
e-cigarette addiction and research e-cigarettes.
The settlement also requires Juul to sell its products from behind
the counter in North Carolina stores, and to use third-party age
verification systems for online sales. The order commits Juul to
sending young "mystery shoppers" to 1,000 stores each year, to
check whether they are selling to minors. It also bans the company
from using models younger than 35 in advertisements and states that
no advertisements should be posted near schools.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, who
teaches product liability, said the settlement bodes well for the
other states suing Juul.
"This opens a similar possibility to every state going forward," he
said. "North Carolina has been in the vanguard and deserves some
credit. I think this has huge financial and other implications."
Mr. Tobias said he was not surprised that Juul did not admit to
wrongdoing.
"That almost always happens in these kinds of settlements —
that's a standard clause," he said.
Juul has not begun other serious settlement talks, however, because
none of the other 2,600 lawsuits against the company have been
scheduled to begin during 2021. The company is waiting for the
F.D.A. ruling before deciding how to move forward. If the F.D.A.
will permit Juul's products to stay on the market to help adult
smokers quit, industry executives believe the company's negotiating
stance will be strengthened.
But settling with numerous plaintiffs would be expensive. Juul has
seen sales plummet during the past year, analysts say. The company
is private so does not disclose its financial data.
Marc Scheineson, a lawyer with Alston & Bird, whose practice
includes small tobacco companies, called the $40 million in the
North Carolina settlement "a relatively small sum to pay to avoid
mounting legal fees and the plaintiff pile-on syndrome."
He also noted that most of the steps Juul agreed to take in the
consent degree, such as not advertising near schools and
behind-the-counter sales, are actions that it has already taken in
an effort to gain public favor. Mr. Scheineson also said that
electronic nicotine delivery products, such as Juul, "still have an
important public health use by adults as a proven effective tool to
quit smoking more harmful cigarettes."
Juul faces other legal threats, too. The Federal Trade Commission
is suing Juul, along with the big tobacco company Altria and
related parties, seeking to unwind the 2018 deal that gave Altria
35 percent of Juul. Altria, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, paid
$12.8 billion for that stake, but it has since written down the
value of the investment to $1.5 billion.
The commission says that the two companies entered into a series of
agreements, including Altria's investment, that eliminated
competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. The F.T.C. also
claims that Altria and Juul started as competitors in the
e-cigarette market, but that as Juul became more popular, Altria
dealt with the threat by taking its own Mark Ten e-cigarette off
the market in exchange for a share of Juul's profits. Both Altria
and Juul have denied the charges.
The multi-district federal litigation in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California consolidates cases on three
tracks: personal injury, which includes plaintiffs claiming
addiction, lung injuries and other health problems; a consumer
class action track, claiming that individuals paid too much for a
product that addicted them; and a government entity track,
consisting of school districts and counties seeking monetary
reimbursement for vaping-relating damages. Investors in Juul, like
Altria and other entities, are also involved. Depositions have
begun, and the first case is scheduled to go to trial in February
2022.
Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
called the North Carolina settlement a positive step that puts Juul
under the same marketing restrictions that already apply to other
tobacco companies, with some added sales restrictions and
protection against the use of social influencers.
"But," he added, "these measures will not solve the youth
e-cigarette crisis. Nothing short of F.D.A. action will reverse the
youth e-cigarette epidemic." [GN]
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RITTMAN EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05009 (N.D. Cal., June 29,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Rittman Exempted Village School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 100 Saurer Street in Rittman,
Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Ferndale School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNDALE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05006 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Ferndale Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 871 Pinecrest in Ferndale, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth in Ill., School Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plainfield Community Consolidated School District No. 202, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05011 (N.D.
Cal., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Plainfield Community Consolidated School District No. 202 is a
unified school district with its offices located at 15732 Howard
St. in Plainfield, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
LIBERTY LOCAL SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-05012 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Liberty Local Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 4115 Shady Road in Youngstown, Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
LEMON CREEK: Defendants Appeal Fuel Spill Class Action Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Boivin at thestar.com reports that it's one step forward, one
step back for people involved in a class action lawsuit over a
spill of jet fuel in the Slocan River in 2013.
Defendants in the case have appealed Judge D.M. Masuhara's May 21st
ruling that the lawsuit could go ahead. He handed down his decision
after changing some of the specifics of the lawsuit, to reflect
orders received from an appeal of his first ruling on the case.
The lawsuit stems from the July 2013 spill of 35,000 litres of jet
fuel into Lemon Creek by a transport driver making a delivery to a
firefighting operation. The spill forced thousands of people up to
40 kilometres downstream in the Slocan Valley to evacuate the area.
The spill also killed fish and forced residents to get alternate
sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days.
Residents who were affected by the spill launched the suit for
damages.
It's the second time the case will go to the Appeal Court of BC,
even before it goes to trial.
Masuhara, the chambers judge reviewing the certification, ruled in
2017 the class action could go ahead - the first time such a class
action environmental lawsuit had been approved in British Columbia.
But the defendants - the helicopter company, fuel-delivery company,
the truck driver, and provincial government - appealed that
ruling.
The BC Court of Appeal found issue with some of the particulars of
the issues to be decided (called the "common issues"), and sent the
matter back to Masuhara for a re-determination according to the
higher court's reasons.
After implementing the changes outlined by the Court of Appeal,
Masuhara re-certified the lawsuit as a class action.
The proponents filed an appeal to that, but without any details, on
June 21. There's also no date set yet for the appellant court to
hear the case. [GN]
LOANCARE LLC: Gross Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPHER GROSS, as an individual and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE LLC and CIT BANK
NA d/b/a ONEWEST BANK FSB, a subsidiary of CIT GROUP INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05589 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff has an alleged loan, specifically a home equity line
of credit (HELOC) in the principal amount of $100,000.00, which he
applied with IndyMac Bank on or about August 22, 2007. The alleged
HELOC was purportedly assigned to OneWest Bank FSB, a division of
Defendant CIT, for servicing. On or about April 14, 2017, the
Plaintiff has sent a request to Defendant CIT under Section 6 of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act a specific itemized
information about the accounting and servicing of the loan.
Defendant CIT responded to the Plaintiff's request on or about
April 28, 2017, by forwarding copies of a breakdown of corporate
advance fees on the account, original HELOC agreements, loan
history, customer account activity statement, various invoices,
appraisal, appraisal report, a letter on OneWest Bank Mortgage
Servicing's letterhead dated August 3, 2015, an undated letter from
Defendant CIT, and a Settlement Statement, that is the last
correspondence received by Plaintiff from Defendant CIT, says the
suit.
Subsequently, Defendant LoanCare sent the Plaintiff letters dated
March 21, 2018, March 29, 2018, June 4, 2018, October 7, 2019 and
June 29, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the letters he received
from Defendant LoanCare were false because the letters were
presented to deceive and conceal the nature and scope of the
remaining attributes of the Plaintiff's transaction, in which
IndyMac was named as lender but who probably did not fulfill the
attributes of a lender. Defendant LoanCare purportedly failed to
forward any documents that would establish the chain of title to
allow any purported holder in due course to establish title.
Furthermore, all of the responses from LoanCare and the lack of
response from CIT are violations of the Real Estate Settlements
Procedures Act (RESPA) 12 U.S.C. Section 2607. The Defendants
allegedly collect monies from homeowners who were labeled as
mortgages without establishing the chain of title and without
proving their authority or right to collect monies from any
underlying obligation that was falsely implied to be the foundation
for enforcement said mortgages.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant LoanCare's alleged
deceptive and abusive acts ad practices of collecting a debt, the
Plaintiff was damaged and suffered stress and anxiety.
The Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abel L. Pierre, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ABEL L. PIERRE
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 766-3323
Fax: (212) 766-3322
E-mail: abel@apierrelaw.com
LOS MARIACHIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA GUTIERREZ; GLADYS SELENE RAMON; MADELYN RAMON; ARTURO LARA
MUNOZ; and LIVIA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOS MARIACHIS, LLC; FOOD TRUCKS,
LLC; LOREN AGUIRRE, and JOSEPH FLAMINI, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00855 (D. Conn., June 23, 2021) alleges Defendants'
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staffs.
LOS MARIACHIS, LLC owns and operates a restaurant business. [BN]
The Plaintiffs were represented by:
Todd Steigman, Esq.
William G. Madsen, Esq.
MADSEN PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC
402 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 246-2466
Facsimile: (860) 246-1794
E-mail:tsteigman@mppjustice.com
wmadsen@mppjustice.com
-and-
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com
LOUISIANA STATE: Three New Plaintiffs Added to Title IX Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Focus Daily News reports that an amended complaint filed on June 25
in the groundbreaking class action Title IX lawsuit, Owens, et al.
v. Louisiana State University, et al., named Louisiana State
University head football coach, Ed Orgeron, as a defendant in
addition to LSU, the Tiger Athletic Foundation, and other LSU
officials. The lawsuit alleges that Orgeron, along with the
previously named defendants, conspired to "stymie LSU's entire
Title IX policy" in order to protect "certain athletes from viable
Title IX claims."
The amended complaint describes multiple instances where Orgeron
ignored complaints of harassment or assault committed by one of his
players, "John Doe." On one occasion, plaintiff Ashlyn Robertson's
then-boyfriend told Orgeron that Robertson was raped by one of his
football players. Orgeron told him not to be upset because
"everybody's girlfriend sleeps with other people" and did not
report the rape to the LSU Title IX office as is required by
University policy and federal guidance. On another occasion, the
suit alleges, an elderly female security guard reported sexual
harassment by Doe. Orgeron told her it was "just a joke."
Allegations Against LSU Faculty Member
The complaint also adds allegations against an LSU faculty member
who repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted a graduate student,
as well as allegations against another LSU football player who was
allowed to transfer after only a three-week disciplinary
suspension. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief
against LSU and Tiger Athletic Foundation. They are being
represented by Michigan-based Title IX law firms Temperance Legal
Group and Elizabeth Abdnour Law, as well as New Orleans-based Katie
Lasky Law.
Ashlyn Robertson, a plaintiff added in the amended complaint,
stated, "I'm doing this to protect our daughters and future women
of LSU. There has to be change within the University and its
policies. If I would have known other women had been assaulted by
the same person I was, I wouldn't have felt so alone, and I would
have had the courage to come forward back in 2016."
Elizabeth Abdnour, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "We are
proud to represent these brave women in their fight for justice.
Holding the responsible individuals and institutions accountable
for their failures is the first step towards creating a safer LSU
for everyone."
Katie Lasky, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "With the filing
of this amended complaint, we applaud and stand with the additional
women who have bravely come forward to tell their personal and
difficult stories and hold LSU accountable for its years of putting
money over the well-being of students." [GN]
M1 HOLDINGS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M1 HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05471-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.m1finance.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, the suit adds.
M1 HOLDINGS INC. is a technology company offering a range of
financial products and services through its wholly-owned, separate
but affiliated operating subsidiaries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
MADISON SQUARE: Merger Vote Gets Ok From Delaware Ch. Court Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Jackson at Reuters reports that MSG Networks Inc can proceed
with a shareholder vote on its plans to merge into Madison Square
Garden Entertainment Corp, a Delaware Chancery Court judge ruled.
Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick rejected attempts from both
companies' investors to block the vote, arguing that the proposed
business combination did not violate the state's corporate law.
A spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement that the
company is "pleased" with the ruling and continues "to believe the
transaction benefits all shareholders."
MSG Networks and MSG Entertainment announced in March that they
would combine through an all-stock transaction, after which MSG
Networks would become a subsidiary of MSG Entertainment.
MSG Networks investor Timothy Leisz later hit the sports
broadcasting company and its board with a proposed class action in
June, claiming the deal unfairly benefited the Dolan family, which
controls both MSG Networks and MSG Entertainment.
Investors Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund and James Gould
filed a proposed class action derivative suit against MSG
Entertainment's board and MSG Networks later that month.
In the ruling, McCormick said that the merger did not violate a
state law that prohibits a shareholder with a 15% voting stake from
pursing a merger with the company within three years of when the
shareholder acquired that equity. That three-year period ended for
the Dolan family in 2013, the judge said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
The cases are Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund et al. v. James
L. Dolan et al, No. 2021-0468, and Leisz v. MSG Networks Inc et al,
2021-0504, in the Chancery Court of Delaware.
For Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund: Eric Zagar of Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Gregory Varallo of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann
For Gould: Mark Lebovitch and Gregory Varallo of Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann
For Leisz: Michael Palestina of Kahn Swick & Foto; Juan Monteverde
of Monteverde & Associates; and Blake Bennett of Cooch & Taylor
For MSG Networks: Andrew Ditchfield of Davis Polk & Wardwell; and
Kevin Coen of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
For Dolan: Maeve O'Connor and Elliot Greenfield of Debevoise &
Plimpton; and Brian Ralston of Potter Anderson & Corroon
For MSG Entertainment: William Savitt and Ryan McLeod of Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz; and Elena Norman of Young Conaway Stargatt &
Taylor. [GN]
MAGELLAN HRSC: Court Issues Opinion on Coffin Transfer Bid Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHRISTIE COFFIN; KIMBERLY WILLMOTT and BRENDA
KASATY, Plaintiffs v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., Defendant, Case No. CIV
20-0144 JB/GJF (D.N.M.), the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion detailing its denial of
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue.
District Judge James O. Browning notes that on March 18, 2021, the
Court entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer
Venue, filed July 8, 2020. In the Order, the Court stated that it
would "issue a Memorandum Opinion at a later date more fully
detailing its rationale for the decision." This Memorandum Opinion
is the promised opinion.
The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Transfer Venue, filed July 8, 2020. The Court held a hearing on
August 7, 2020. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court
should depart from the law of the case and retransfer the action to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California;
(ii) whether unanticipated post-transfer change in circumstances
exist in this case and if the Court should consider them to warrant
departure from the law of the case regarding transfer; and (iii)
whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the
class-action Plaintiffs' claims after Christie Coffin, Kimberly
Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty (the "Class Representatives") withdrew
from a similar class-action case currently pending in this Court.
The Court concludes that the case should not be retransferred to
the Southern District of California because: (i) there are no
factors that warrant the reconsideration of the original transfer
order and thus departure from the law of the case; (ii) the Court
should not consider unanticipated post-transfer changes in
circumstance in considering a motion to retransfer, and, even if it
does, such changes have not occurred in this case; and (iii) the
Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
claims because the Class Representatives' withdrawal from an
ongoing case in the District of New Mexico, Deakin v. Magellan
Health, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-773 KWR/KK, does not revoke their
consent to the District of New Mexico's jurisdiction. The Court,
therefore, denies the request to retransfer venue to the Southern
District of California.
Factual Background
The Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint for Violations of California
Labor Law Statutes and Unfair Business Practices was filed on June
14, 2019 ("Complaint"). The Court accepts the factual allegations
as true for the purposes of the Motion.
Christie Coffin, Kimberly Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty, all worked
at various points in time from 2014 through the present as Care
Managers and Senior Care Managers for the Defendant, Magellan HRSC,
Inc. ("Magellan HRSC"). Of the Class Representatives, only one
resides currently in California. The Plaintiffs proposed a class
that includes the Class Representatives and "all similarly situated
former and current employees of Magellan HRSC who, at any time
during the four year period preceding the filing of this complaint,
were employed in California in the capacity of a 'care manager' or
'senior care manager' and classified as an exempt employee."
Magellan HRSC classified the Plaintiffs as employees exempt from
overtime pay, leading the Class Representatives to file causes of
action, including: (i) failure to pay wages under Cal. Lab. Code
Sections 201, 202, 204; (ii) failure to pay overtime compensation
under Cal. Indus. Welfare Comm'n, Order No. 4-2001; (iii) failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements under Cal. Lab. Code
Section 226(a); and (iv) unlawful business practices under Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Magellan HRSC classified employees
working in the roles of "Care Manager" and "Senior Care Manager" as
exempt from the requirement to be paid overtime wages.
According to the Complaint, during their employment with Magellan
HRSC, the Plaintiffs were expected to, and did consistently, "work
in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a work week
without being paid overtime compensation." During their employment,
the Plaintiffs were not paid for the full amount of time worked,
compensated for overtime worked, nor provided itemized wage
statements.
Procedural Background
In June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Diego against Magellan
HRSC. Magellan HRSC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California and then sought to transfer the
action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.
On Feb. 19, 2020, the Honorable Cynthia Bashant, U.S. District
Judge for the Southern District of California, transferred this
action to the District of New Mexico ("SDC Order"). The SDC Order
states that the first-to-file rule applies to this action regarding
an ongoing case in the District of New Mexico, Deakin v. Magellan
Health, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-773 KWR/KK ("Deakin"), pending
before the Honorable Kea W. Riggs, United States District Judge for
the District of New Mexico. Judge Bashant notes that Deakin was
filed before this action. Judge Bashant also concludes that both
actions contain substantially similar parties, including the same
Defendant and two classes that "will encompass at least some of the
same individuals."
Judge Bashant explains that the underlying allegations of the two
actions are the same: that Magellan HRSC misclassifies certain
employees as exempt from overtime pay and underpays employees
because of this misclassification. Judge Bashant concludes that:
(i) the Plaintiffs did not show that they will suffer prejudice
because of a transfer of venue; (ii) that dismissal is
inappropriate because this action includes claims founded on the
California Labor Code, rather than just the FLSA and New Mexico law
in Deakin; and (iii) that transfer to the District Court of New
Mexico is most appropriate.
The Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue
On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to
the Southern District of California. The Plaintiffs argue that
transfer is proper, because this action: (i) was filed originally
in California and may be heard in the Southern District of
California; (ii) alleges violations of substantive California law;
and (iii) arises out of events and transactions taking place
exclusively in California. The Plaintiffs argue, among other
things, that these considerations, along with discretionary factors
and the interests of an efficient judiciary, make the Southern
District of California proper venue for this action.
In response, Magellan HRSC argues that the action was transferred
properly to the District of New Mexico under the first-to-file
rule, because this action is tied to a Fair Labor Standards Act
class action pending currently before Judge Riggs in Deakin that
the Plaintiffs "had affirmatively opted-in to." Magellan HRSC
maintains that the Court must apply the law-of-the-case principle
that "generally forbids one district court from reconsidering
issues that another district court decided in the same case."
Magellan HRSC then contends, among other things, that
law-of-the-case principles apply, particularly to transfer
decisions, and prohibit the Court from reconsidering previous
decisions in the case that the Southern District of California
made.
The Plaintiffs reply that law-of-the-case principles do not apply
here, because their withdrawal from Deakin makes the first-to-file
rule inapplicable. The Plaintiffs insist that their withdrawal from
Deakin constitutes "a post-transfer change of circumstance that
warrants reconsider[ing] venue in the first instance." The
Plaintiffs further argue that the Court should adopt a broad
interpretation of post-transfer changes in circumstance that
warrant reconsidering previous transfer decisions.
The Court held a hearing on Aug. 7, 2020. The Court, noting that it
is "hesitant, after a federal judge in California looked at this
issue and transferred it here, to start bouncing it back," stated
that the Plaintiffs' initial decision to join Deakin amounted to
consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. The Court
concluded that it is "inclined to keep" the case.
The Order
On March 18, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue. The Court agreed with Judge
Bashant that the '"first-to-file rule applies because litigation
involving substantially similar parties and issues is pending in an
earlier-filed case in New Mexico, and transfer of this action to
that district will maximize judicial efficiency and consistency."
The Court concluded that the previous transfer created a "'heavy
presumption' in favor of keeping the case in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico," and should not be
reconsidered lightly. The Court stated that it would not serve the
interests of judicial efficiency to reconsider the original
transfer order.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts
sufficient to warrant the Court's reconsideration of Judge
Bashant's transfer decision. The Court denies the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Transfer Venue on the basis of the Tenth Circuit's
instruction in Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928
F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991)("Chrysler Credit Corp.") to abide
by the law-of-the-case doctrine regarding transferor court
decisions, because: (i) there has been no change to governing law
by the subsequent decision of a higher court; (ii) the Plaintiffs
have not alleged that new evidence has become available in the
Southern District of California that warrants retransfer; (iii)
Judge Bashant did not make a clear error in transferring this
action to the District of New Mexico; and (iv) there is no
"manifest injustice" in declining to reevaluate Judge Bashant's
original transfer order.
Judge Browning also holds, among other things, that the Court does
not agree with the Plaintiffs that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over them and their claims, because the Class
Representatives' original consent to join Deakin amounts to consent
to the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction and cannot be
revoked. The Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs' challenges
to the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction regarding absent
class-members lack a sound basis in the applicable law and relevant
facts.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer
Venue.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 24,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ew59cfwj from
Leagle.com.
Daniel Robert Shinoff, Artiano Shinoff, in San Diego, California;
and Sheldon A. Ostroff, Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff, in San
Diego, California; Abbey Marie Jahnke --
Abbey.Jahnke@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., in San Diego,
California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs.
Mark D. Temple -- mtemple@bakerlaw.com -- Sabrina L. Shadi --
sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, in Houston, Texas,
and Randy S. Bartell -- rbartell@montand.com -- Montgomery &
Andrews, PA, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendant.
MANGO STAND: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mango Stand, LLC. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Mango Stand, LLC, d/b/a
CellPhoneCases.com Case No. 2:21-cv-03731 (E.D.N.Y., July 2,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mango Stand, LLC doing business as CellPhoneCases.com --
https://www.cellphonecases.com/ -- offers guaranteed lowest prices
on cell phone cases and covers.[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
MARYLAND: Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Amy Simpson, writing for FOX5 News, reports that as a class-action
lawsuit makes its way through the court system in Maryland, it is
not the first state to see a challenge on its response to jobless
benefits during the pandemic.
In April, five women filed a class-action lawsuit against the head
of the Virginia Employment Commission.
By the end of May, a federal judge approved a settlement in the
case -- ordering VEC to "substantially resolve" at least 95% of
unpaid claims by Labor Day and to improve communication with
claimants in Virginia.
Maryland's class-action lawsuit was filed against Governor Larry
Hogan and Maryland Secretary of Labor Tiffany Robinson.
The suit was filed on behalf of approximately 50,000 people who
have applied for Maryland benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The class-action suit asks for a temporary restraining order on the
Governor's decision to end federal benefits.
It also asks for eligible unemployment claims to be processed,
adjudicated, and paid out.
On June 25, a judge in Indiana ruled the Hoosier state must
continue to provide federal unemployment benefits to claimants
there, which temporarily blocks Governor Eric Holcomb's decision to
opt-out of the programs.
In response to the Maryland unemployment lawsuit, Governor Larry
Hogan's office told FOX45 News:
On bonus benefits: Go anywhere in the state right now, and
employers will tell you their top challenge is finding enough
workers. In fact, there are more jobs available now than ever
before. Even the White House has distanced itself from bonus
benefits, saying that states have every right to opt out.
One example of what our labor shortage looks like can be found in
our most recent jobs report. The Accommodations and Food Services
industry added 2,200 jobs in May -- less than in February, March,
and April even while demand continues to rise. Additionally, wages
and salaries rose in May. All of this points to the conditions that
warrant opting out of the program.
On pending claims: The state continues to successfully process more
than 97% of claims even while facing an onslaught of fraudulent
claims each week. For the small fraction that are pending, state
law unfortunately leaves claimants vulnerable to being stuck in a
complicated adjudication process. The General Assembly failed to
address this problem during its 2021 session. [GN]
MARYLAND: Judge to Issue Decision On Unemployment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Rose Ramos at cbslocal.com reports that the fate of federal
unemployment benefits for thousands of Marylanders remains in limbo
as a judge stalls his final decision just hours before the funds
end.
Last month, Maryland's unemployed workers filed a lawsuit pushing
for those benefits to be extended after Governor Larry Hogan
announced a July 3rd deadline
A circuit court judge says he needs more time to decide whether to
end the additional federal pandemic benefits that put $300 more
dollars into the pockets of unemployed Marylanders.
This is a decision thousands of folks have been waiting for . . . .
. and we know this because the hearing was a public one broadcast
via zoom with a phone number anyone from the general public could
can – and at one point over sixteen thousand people were dialed
in . . . . all eagerly awaiting this decision
"So in the past six months I've applied to a hundred jobs," said
Dee Green, who is unemployed.
Green says her full-time job right now is trying to get a job.
I have my business suit and I have been active even at sixty-three,
i'm just out there applying to jobs and showing up for interviews,"
Green said.
But it's been months and nothing. And that's why in the meantime,
she says she needs her unemployment benefits, but the federal
benefit of three hundred dollars expires soon.
"That three hundred dollars represents food on the table," said
Alec Summerfield, attorney for the Unemployed Workers Union. "That
represents child care, that represents car payments, house
payments, healthcare payments."
In June, Governor Hogan announced the state will opt out of the
benefits months before the federal deadline in September.
Attorney Alec Summerfield filed a class-action lawsuit versus
Governor Hogan and Maryland Labor Secretary Tiffany Robinson on
behalf of about 50,000 people who filed for unemployment – hoping
a judge will reverse the governor's decision.
"We want him to stop the governor from cutting off the federal
benefits of three hundred dollars a week getting to people," said
Summerfield.
But during a hearing, after listening to both sides, the case's
judge said he needed more time to decide, leaving Maryland's
unemployed awaiting a final decision.
The judge said he will post his written decision soon.
In response to backlash surrounding the deadline, Governor Hogan
has said "While these federal programs provided important temporary
relief, vaccines and jobs are now in good supply. And we have a
critical problem where businesses across our state are trying to
hire more people, but many are facing severe worker shortages."
[GN]
MDL 3000: Court Denies Transfer of Hayes' False Imprisonment Row
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case "In Re: Charles Hayes False Imprisonment Litigation,"
MDL NO. 3000, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the proposed
transfer of two cases -- one from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California and the other one from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada -- to the the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Plaintiff Charles Hayes claims that he was wrongfully held for
several weeks in Clark County, Nevada and Kern County, California,
due to a case of mistaken identity. The panel says that the actions
pending in adjacent districts involve straightforward claims and
allegations concerning a discrete time period, brought by a common
Plaintiff who is represented by the same counsel in all actions and
defendant Kern County is represented by the same counsel in the two
actions in which it is named. The panel concludes that only a
minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate and Hayes has failed to meet that
burden here.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 order is available at
https://bit.ly/3wnmBdf
MDL 3001: 2 Gambling Apps Cases Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
In case docketed "In Re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style
Games Litigation," MDL No. 3001, Judge Karen K. Caldwell,
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers one case each from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama and the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, and with the consent of that
court, assigned them to Judge Edward J. Davila for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
These putative class actions present common factual questions
arising from the allegation that Google, through its Google Play
Store, promotes, facilitates, and profits from simulated
casino-style games that involve gambling in violation of state
laws. Plaintiffs in all actions allege that casino-style app games
in the Google Play Store, such as slots, poker, blackjack, and
bingo, allow users to purchase virtual coins or coin-like objects
to play for the chance to win more playing time and that paying
money for the chance to win more playing time constitutes unlawful
gambling. Common factual questions include the nature of the game
play within the same 200 or more involved apps and the function of
in-app purchases, the nature of Google's relationship with the
third-party app developers, including its process for reviewing and
publishing apps, Google's financial arrangements for distributing
app-based revenue from the games, and Apple's alleged promotion of
the apps.
Common defendants Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. support the
motion to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of
California. The panel agreed that the Northern District of
California is the appropriate transferee district for this
litigation as Google has its headquarters in this district, and
thus, much of the common evidence likely is located there.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2UiMpKb
MDL 3002: Accellion Data Breach Disputes Transfer Request Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the product liability case "In Re: Accellion, Inc., Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3002, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, denied the proposed transfer of nine cases from the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California; two
cases from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan; and three cases from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Proponents of centralization argue that these actions share factual
issues concerning a recently-disclosed breach of Accellion's File
Transfer Appliance product from mid-December 2020 into January
2021. Plaintiffs are Accellion clients' customers and/or employees
who allege their personally identifiable information and/or
protected health information were compromised in the breach.
The panel deems centralization of these actions unnecessary at this
time since there is no reason to disrupt the parties' efforts at
informal coordination when most agree that centralization would
provide little or no benefit and emphasized that centralization
should be the last solution after considering review of all other
options. Additionally, any factual overlap among the actions as to
Accellion's product, its vulnerability to attack and its alleged
support of this product may be eclipsed by factual issues specific
to each client defendant. Opponents of centralization argue that,
rather than a single data breach, there were numerous data breaches
of each client defendant, occurring at different times and
involving each client defendant's own servers.
A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 order is available at
https://bit.ly/3dCBPV2
MICHAEL KORS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Norma Vasquez, as an individual and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. Michael Kors USA, Inc., a
California corporation; Does 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No.
30-02021-01201548-CU-OE-CXC was transferred from the Superior Court
State of CA County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on July 1, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01145-JLS-ADS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment
Discrimination.
Michael Kors USA -- https://www.michaelkors.com/ -- is an online
shop for jet set luxury: designer handbags, watches, shoes,
clothing & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Armond Marced Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON LAW APC
2 Venture Plaza Suite 240
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 281-6857
Fax: (949) 777-6218
Email: ajackson@jlaw-pc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer Rose Nunez, Esq.
Elizabeth Mary Levy, Esq.
Jonathan D. Meer, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Fax: (310) 201-5219
Email: jnunez@seyfarth.com
elevy@seyfarth.com
jmeer@seyfarth.com
MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Manning Appeals Ruling in Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 3, 2021, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit initiated by Chris Manning, remains
pending.
On June 13, 2019, current Micron employee, Chris Manning, filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject
to the Idaho Wage Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus
after the conclusion of 2018 whose performance rating was
calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range of
performance ratings.
On July 12, 2019, Manning and three other Company employees filed
an amended complaint as putative class action representatives.
On behalf of themselves and the putative class, Manning and the
three other plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Idaho
Wage Claim Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and fraud.
On June 24, 2020, the court entered judgment in favor of Micron
based on the statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on July 23, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and
markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random
access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor
components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise,
Idaho.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Zamora FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Carolina C. Zamora, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case
No. ESX-L-4221-21 was transferred from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on July 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13290 to the
proceeding.
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 appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 471-6200
Email: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com
MONTANA SKY: Guy Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montana Sky, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Dorothy Guy; Cristal Miller formerly
known as: Cristal Graham; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Montana Sky, LLC; Rock Wilson and G. Russell
Rollyson, Jr., individually and in his official capacity; Case No.
2:21-cv-00381 (S.D.W. Va., July 2, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Montana Sky is a real estate company in Billings, Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
1217 Quarrier Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (304) 344-3144
Fax: (304) 344-3145
Email: bren@msjlaw.org
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: SCOTUS Upheld Rulings in Federal Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States
upheld lower court rulings that the National Collegiate Athletic
Association's restrictions on education-related benefits violated
federal antitrust law. The Supreme Court's 9-0 decision brings an
end to more than 7 years of hard-fought litigation led by Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP and co-counsel Winston & Strawn, LLP and
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The defendants in the case were
the NCAA and the top athletic conferences in the country, who were
represented by some of the most prestigious defense law firms in
the country.
"This is a banner day for college athletes," said Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw attorney Ben Shiftan. "For far too long, college athletes
have put their blood, sweat, and tears into their sports, earning
enormous sums of money for their universities and the NCAA, all
while having their educational benefits artificially capped. The
fact that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 makes it all the more
special."
The decision pokes significant holes in the NCAA's mantra that it
should be permitted to cap compensation to college athletes in the
name of "amateurism." As Justice Gorsuch noted in the majority
opinion, "the district court found that the NCAA had not adopted
any consistent definition" of amateurism and that "[i]nstead, the
court found, the NCAA's rules and restrictions on compensation have
shifted markedly over time." As Justice Kavanaugh noted in his
concurrence, the NCAA should not be permitted to cap compensation
under the theory that "the defining feature of college sports . . .
is that the student athletes are not paid." After all, "[a]ll of
the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks'
wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from
low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers'
salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of
the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses' income in order to
create a 'purer' form of helping the sick."
The decision will be cited by courts throughout the country for
decades to come. However, it is just one part of the nationwide
movement to improve college athletes' economic rights. Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw looks forward to continuing the fight on behalf of
college athletes.
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Minneapolis, has emerged as a nationally recognized
force in class action lawsuits and complex litigation. For more
information about the firm, please visit https://www.pswlaw.com
[GN]
NEUROLOGICAL FITNESS: Court Enters Order for Class Cert. Bids
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANA LISHESKI, et al.
v. NEUROLOGICAL FITNESS EQUIPMENT AND EDUCATION, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-03826-FMO-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class certification.
1. Joint Brief
The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single,
fully integrated joint brief covering each party's
position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a
party is immediately followed by the opposing
party's/parties' response.
2. Citation to Evidence
All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be
directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the
evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a
deposition.
3. Page Limitation
Each separately-represented party shall be limited to
25 pages, exclusive of tables of contents and authorities.
Repetition shall be avoided and, as always, brevity is
preferred. Leave for additional space will be given only
in extraordinary cases.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UtK6DS at no extra charge.[CC]
OBI SEAFOODS: Paunovic FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN PAUNOVIC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC
and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, Case No. 21-2-07112-7 SEA, was
removed from the King County Superior Court for the State of
Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on June 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00884 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
OBI Seafoods LLC is a seafood company with administrative offices
located in Seattle, Washington.
Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC is a seafood company with administrative
offices located in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Douglas E. Smith, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101-3122
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
E-mail: desmith@littler.com
OCUGEN INC: Gross Law Reminds Investors of August 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OCGN).
Shareholders who purchased shares of OCGN during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ocugen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17363&from=5
CLASS PERIOD : February 2, 2021 to June 10, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the information submitted to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to
support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would
not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's financial statements, as well as Defendants'
statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
OCUGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces purchasers of Ocugen,
Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN) securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until August 17, 2021 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ocugen class action
lawsuit. The case is captioned Nicanor v. Ocugen, Inc., No.
21-cv-02725, and is assigned to C. Darnell Jones, II of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Ocugen class action lawsuit charges
Ocugen and certain of its executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ocugen class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the
Ocugen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here
or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Ocugen class action lawsuit must be filed
with the court no later than August 17, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Ocugen class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the information that
Ocugen submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
was insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA");
(ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA; and (iii) as a
result, Ocugen's financial statements, as well as defendants'
statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On June 10, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing that it
would pursue a biologics license application ("BLA") with the FDA
instead of the previously announced EUA. In doing so, Ocugen
revealed that "[t]he FDA provided feedback to Ocugen regarding the
Master File the Company had previously submitted and recommended
that Ocugen pursue a BLA submission instead of an EUA application
for its vaccine candidate and requested additional information and
data. Ocugen is in discussions with the FDA to understand the
additional information required to support a BLA submission. The
Company anticipates that data from an additional clinical trial
will be required to support the submission." On this news, the
price of Ocugen stock fell more than 28%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ocugen
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Ocugen 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 Ocugen class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Ocugen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Ocugen class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN]
OLIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated IPP Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss certain claims asserted by the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; THE TRIPP
PLATING WORKS, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants; and PRECIOUS PLATE, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:19-CV-00385 EAW, 1:19-CV-00975 EAW,
1:19-CV-00990 EAW (W.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs The Tripp Plating Works, Inc. ("Tripp") and Precious
Plate, Inc. ("Precious Plate") (collectively the "Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs") bring these putative class actions against
Defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental
Chemical Corporation, Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shintech
Incorporated, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.
(collectively, "Defendants"), alleging an anticompetitive
conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in
the United States.
Presently before the Court is a motion filed by the Defendants
seeking dismissal of these claims asserted by the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs: (1) consumer protection claims asserted under
the laws of various states; (2) antitrust claims asserted under the
laws of various states; and (3) unjust enrichment claims asserted
under the laws of various states. For the reasons set forth in this
Decision and Order, the Defendants' motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
Background
As noted, the instant actions relate to a purported anticompetitive
conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in
the United States. The details of the alleged conspiracy are set
forth at length in this Court's Decision and Order dated March 27,
2020, resolving several prior motions to dismiss. The Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs are New York corporations that "indirectly
purchased Caustic Soda manufactured by one or more of the
Defendants" during the relevant time period.
The Lead Action was filed on March 22, 2019, and reassigned to
Judge Wolford on May 8, 2019. The Lead Action and various related
putative class actions brought by direct purchasers of caustic soda
were referred for the handling of non-dispositive pretrial matters
to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer, who entered a
scheduling and case management order on May 17, 2019, consolidating
the cases for pretrial purposes.
Tripp commenced its putative class action on July 25, 2019 (Civil
Action No. 19-cv-00785 (the "Tripp Action")). Precious Plate
commenced its putative class action on July 29, 2019 (Civil Action
No. 19-cv-00990 (the "Precious Plate Action")). Both matters were
referred to Judge Roemer for the handling of non-dispositive
pretrial matters. On Sept. 19, 2019, Judge Roemer entered a Case
Management Order consolidating the Tripp Action and the Precious
Plate Action into the Lead Action.
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint on April 16, 2020 (the "indirect purchaser complaint").
The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on May 28, 2020.
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed their response on July 13,
2020, and Defendants filed their reply on August 12, 2020.
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Claims
The indirect purchaser complaint sets forth the following claims:
(1) violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1; (2) "restraint of trade" in violation of the laws of Arizona,
California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; (3) "unfair
and deceptive trade practices" in violation of the laws of Alaska,
Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; and (4)
unjust enrichment "under the law of the District of Columbia and
the laws of all states and territories in the United States, except
Ohio and Indiana." In addition to other forms of relief, the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs seek an injunction pursuant to
Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26.
In their motion papers, the Defendants seek dismissal of 38 of the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' state consumer protection claims, 21
of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' state law antitrust claims,
all of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims,
and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' request for injunctive
relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. However, in their
further briefing, the parties narrowed their disputes regarding the
state consumer protection claims.
Specifically, in their opposition papers, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their consumer protection claims
asserted under the laws of Arkansas, Delaware, the District of
Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In their
reply papers, the Defendants then indicated that they are no longer
seeking dismissal of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims asserted under the laws of Florida, Nebraska, New
Mexico, New York, South Dakota, and Vermont.
The Court, thus, limits its consideration of the consumer
protection claims to those arising under the laws of Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah,
and West Virginia.
A. State Law Consumer Protection Claims
The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims asserted under the laws of Alaska, Arizona,
California, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia are subject to dismissal.
The claims asserted under the laws of Colorado, Minnesota, and
North Dakota will be permitted to proceed.
The Defendants seek dismissal of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
claims under the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, Mont. Code Section 30-14-101, et seq. (the
"MUTPCPA"), and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code
Section 13-11-4 (the "UCSPA"), on the basis that these statutes
only protect "consumers." The Court agrees that dismissal of these
claims is required.
Here, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs do not allege that they
purchased caustic soda "primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes." To the contrary, they allege that they (and
the other members of the putative classes) purchased caustic soda
from the Defendants for "non-residential use." The Court,
accordingly, agrees with the Defendants that the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs have not alleged a viable claim under the MUTPCPA and
the UCSPA.
The Defendants' argument regarding the Oregon Unfair Trade
Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Section 646.605 et seq. (the "OUTPA")
is also related to the purposes for which the purchases were made.
As relevant here, it is unlawful under the OUTPA to make "false or
misleading representations of fact concerning the offering price of
. . . real estate, goods, or services." The OUTPA further defines
"real estate, goods or services" to mean "those that are or may be
obtained primarily for personal, family or household purposes, or
that are or may be obtained for any purposes as a result of a
telephone solicitation."
As the Defendants correctly point out, Judge Wolford notes, there
is nothing in the indirect purchaser complaint suggesting that the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs or the members of the putative class
obtained caustic soda "primarily for personal, family or household
purposes." To the contrary, as already noted by the Court, there is
an express allegation that the caustic soda at issue was obtained
for "non-residential use." Accordingly, dismissal of the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the OUTPA is warranted, citing
F.D.S. Marine, LLC v. Shaver Transp. Co., No. 00-1245-ST, 2001 WL
34045718, at *1 (D. Or. May 25, 2001).
The Court turns next to Defendants' arguments regarding the
interaction between the Supreme Court's ruling in Illinois Brick
Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' claims brought under the consumer protection laws of
Alaska and New Jersey.
The Court agrees with the analysis of the other courts, who have
considered this issue and, accordingly, dismisses the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the laws of
Alaska.
The Defendants argue that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have
not alleged "communications with, or directed to, consumers,"
Wilson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 N.J. at 341 (2007), and so cannot
maintain a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the
"NJCFA"). The Court agrees. The only "communications" that the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs identify in opposition to the
Defendants' motion are information provided by the Defendants to
IHS Markit, an "industry analyst and consultant." This information
was then allegedly used by IHS Markit in its management of a
caustic soda pricing index. However, there is no allegation or
suggestion in the indirect purchaser complaint that the information
provided to IHS Markit was subsequently communicated to any
consumer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of New Jersey's opinion in
Wilson bars the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the
NJCFA.
The Court turns next to Defendants' arguments that the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs have not pled viable claims under the consumer
protection laws of Arizona, California, North Carolina, and West
Virginia because they have not alleged that they relied on any
misrepresentation by Defendants. The Court notes as an initial
matter that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs concede that they
have not pled reliance. As such, the issue before the Court is
whether these states' consumer protection laws require reliance as
an element of a claim.
The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (the "ACFA") prohibits persons from
engaging in any deception of any material fact with intent that
others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission in
connection with the sale or advertisement of consumer goods or
services. Because proximate injury is an element of an ACFA claim,
and because actual reliance is required to establish proximate
injury, the Court agrees with the Defendants that the ACFA claims
must be dismissed.
The Court also agrees that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "CUCL"), fail
as a matter of law. While it is true, as the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs point out, that the court in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46
Cal.4th 298, 326 (2009), also held that "a presumption, or at least
an inference, of reliance arises wherever there is a showing that a
misrepresentation was material," any such presumption has been
rebutted in this case because, as noted, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs concede that they did not rely on any misrepresentations
by the Defendants in deciding to purchase caustic soda, Judge
Wolford opines. On these admitted facts, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim under the CUCL.
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' concession that they did not
rely on the purported misrepresentations by the Defendants is,
thus, fatal to their consumer protection claims asserted under
North Carolina law, Judge Wolford holds.
The Court also agrees with the Defendants with respect to the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' West Virginia consumer protection
claims. The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the "WVCCPA")
claims are subject to dismissal.
The Defendants have made a related but distinct argument regarding
the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the
"ICFDBPA"). Specifically, the Defendants contend that the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs have not alleged deception, as required to
state a claim under the ICFDBPA. The Court agrees that, under the
standard set by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Shannon v. Boise
Cascade Corp., 208 Ill.2d 517, 525 (2004), the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs have not stated a viable claim under the ICFDBPA.
Judge Wolford notes that the indirect purchaser complaint does not
allege that any of these misrepresentations were made or received
in New Hampshire. The fact that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
(or members of the putative classes) may have subsequently
purchased caustic soda in New Hampshire at allegedly inflated
prices simply does not bring the claimed conduct within the ambit
of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (the "NHCPA"). The
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' NHCPA claims must be dismissed.
The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged deceptive conduct under the consumer protection
laws of Minnesota and North Dakota. Judge Wolford notes that the
Defendants have made no meaningful argument in this regard, but
have simply cited the relevant statutes and asserted without
additional elaboration that the indirect purchaser complaint fails
to identify any conduct by the Defendants that would meet the
pleading requirements for unconscionable, deceptive, or fraudulent
conduct. The Court disagrees.
Judge Wolford holds that the indirect purchaser complaint alleges a
great deal of deceptive conduct by the Defendants, including the
provision of false information to IHS Markit for the express
purpose of manipulating the indexed price of caustic soda.
Accepting these allegations as true, as it must at this stage of
the proceedings, the Court finds no basis to dismiss the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' Minnesota and North Dakota consumer
protection claims.
The Court notes that the Defendants have also argued that the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs cannot seek damages under the MUDTPA
and cannot seek restitution under the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act (the "CCPA"). The Defendants are incorrect with respect to the
MUDTPA--an individual may seek damages under the MUDTPA pursuant to
Minnesota's private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. Section
8.31, so long as the "cause of action benefits the public," Judge
Wolford opines. She points out that the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' allegations, accepted as true, support a plausible
inference of benefit to the public in the event they are
successful, because anticompetitive price fixing presents a public
harm.
As to Defendants' contention that the CCPA does not allow for
restitution, the basis for this position is unclear, Judge Wolford
finds. These actions are, of course, putative class actions.
Because the Defendants have failed to provide any further
elaboration on this argument, the Court must reject it at this
stage of the proceedings.
For all these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to the consumer protection claims brought
under the laws of Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Montana,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and West
Virginia, and denies it with respect to the consumer protection
claims brought under the laws of Colorado, Minnesota, and North
Dakota.
B. State Law Antitrust Claims
The Defendants seek dismissal of the antitrust claims brought under
the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West
Virginia.
The Court grants the motion to dismiss with respect to the
antitrust claims asserted under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut,
the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. The Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee
antitrust claims will be allowed to proceed.
The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged intrastate effects as to the following
contested jurisdictions: Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee. With
respect to these three states, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
have specifically alleged that one or more Defendants made sales of
caustic soda therein.
However, the Court agrees with the Defendants that the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged intrastate effects
in Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
The indirect purchaser complaint contains no specific allegations
of sales of caustic soda in these states.
Further, contrary to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
contentions, their factual allegations do not reasonably support
the inference of impacts in every state, Judge Wolford notes. While
it is true that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs estimate that
Defendants "produce at least 90% of the domestic supply of Caustic
Soda," they also allege that caustic soda is a "commodity chemical"
used for industrial purposes and that the Defendants "have
historically sold and currently sell" only to "hundreds of
purchasers in the United States and elsewhere."
On these allegations, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs cannot
maintain their antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona,
Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
In light of the fact that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have in
fact provided notice of their complaints to the attorneys general
of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, the Court will not dismiss the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims on this basis, and thus need
not and does not decide whether the state law notice requirements
apply in federal court.
The Court will not dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
claims under the Illinois Antitrust Act. The Court grants the
motion to dismiss with respect to the Montana antitrust claims.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
claims under the Utah Antitrust Act, as it is conceded that no
named Plaintiff is a citizen or resident of Utah.
In sum, the Court dismisses the antitrust claims asserted under the
laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
and West Virginia. The antitrust claims asserted under the laws of
Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee will be permitted to
proceed.
C. Unjust Enrichment Claims
The Defendants seek dismissal of all the unjust enrichment claims
asserted by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, for a variety of
reasons. The Court says it need not and does not reach the majority
of these arguments because it agrees with the Defendants that the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of unjust
enrichment do not comply with the relevant pleading standards.
The Court finds the decision in In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 94
F.Supp.3d 224 (D. Conn. 2015) instructive. The Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs cannot simply enumerate a long list of state-law claims
for states where they might otherwise have no available antitrust
recovery and rely on the defendants and the court to sort out
whether or how those laws can act as surrogates for antitrust law.
The Court, accordingly, agrees with the Defendants that the
Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims should be
dismissed.
D. Clayton Act Claim for Injunctive Relief
The Court turns finally to the viability of the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the
Clayton Act. Relying on In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp.
Antitrust Litig., 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008) and In re Nifedipine
Antitrust Litig., 335 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.D.C. 2004), the Defendants
argue that injunctive relief under the Clayton Act is not available
because "Plaintiffs fail to plead any facts suggesting they face a
real and immediate threat of continuing harm justifying the
injunctive relief they seek." The Court disagrees.
Judge Wolford notes that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have
alleged that the Defendants are engaged in an ongoing
anticompetitive conspiracy that continues to result in artificially
inflated prices for caustic soda. She holds that this is sufficient
to allow the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs to proceed on their
request for injunctive relief under Section 16.
The Court finds no basis, at this stage of the proceedings, to
dismiss the claim for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the
Clayton Act.
Leave to Amend
In their opposition papers, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs state
that should the Court grant any part of the Defendants' partial
motion to dismiss, the usual practice in the Second Circuit is to
permit leave to replead to correct pleading deficiencies.
However, the Court does believe that certain of the claims
discussed could potentially be appropriately pled. Specifically,
the Court finds that the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claims
and the antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut,
the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia should be without prejudice
to filing a proper motion for leave to amend.
Further, while the deadline for filing motions for leave to amend
expired on March 31, 2021, the Court finds that good cause exists
to make an exception to that deadline for the filing of such a
motion. To the extent the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs wish to
seek leave to amend the identified claims, they may file a motion
seeking such relief within 45 days of the date of this Decision and
Order.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Court grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion for partial dismissal of the indirect
purchaser complaint.
Specifically, the Court rules as follows: (1) the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims asserted under the
laws of Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are withdrawn without prejudice;
(2) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims
asserted under the laws of Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois,
Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
and West Virginia are dismissed with prejudice; (3) the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' antitrust law claims asserted under the laws
of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia are
dismissed without prejudice; (4) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs'
antitrust claims asserted under the laws of Montana and Utah are
dismissed with prejudice; and (5) the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims are dismissed without
prejudice. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser
complaint is denied in all other respects.
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs may file a motion to amend the
unjust enrichment claims and the antitrust claims under the laws of
Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia
within 45 days of the date of this Decision and Order, consistent
with their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In
the event the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs file such a motion, the
Court will set a briefing schedule and any obligation on the part
of the Defendants to answer the indirect purchaser complaint will
be stayed. However, in the event that no motion for leave to amend
is filed, the Defendants will answer the indirect purchaser
complaint within 60 days of the date of this Decision and Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated June 24,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ve6z8c2 from
Leagle.com.
OLIN CORP: Shin-Etsu & Formosa Dismissed From Antitrust Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York grants
Shin-Etsu's and Formosa's motions to dismiss in the eight related
lawsuits entitled MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. AMREX CHEMICAL CO., INC., On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY,
LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MAIN POOL AND
CHEMICAL CO., INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
PERRY'S ICE CREAM COMPANY, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants. FINCH PAPER, LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants. THE TRIPP PLATING WORKS, INC., On Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. PRECIOUS PLATE, INC., On Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v.
OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:19-CV-00385 EAW,
1:19-CV-00386 EAW, 1:19-CV-00392 EAW, 1:19-CV-00393 EAW,
1:19-CV-00403 EAW, 1:19-CV-00480 EAW, 1:19-CV-00975 EAW,
1:19-CV-00990 EAW (W.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiffs Miami Products & Chemical Co., Amrex Chemical Co., Inc.,
Finch Paper, LLC, Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc., Midwest
Renewable Energy, LLC, Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc., VanDeMark
Chemical, Inc., The Tripp Plating Works, Inc., and Precious Plate,
Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") bring these putative class actions
against Defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc.,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, Westlake Chemical Corporation,
Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. ("Shin-Etsu"), Shintech Incorporated
("Shintech"), Formosa Plastics Corporation ("Formosa"), and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. ("Formosa USA") (collectively
"Defendants"), alleging an anticompetitive conspiracy to fix the
price of caustic soda within the United States.
Presently before the Court are: (1) a renewed motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Shin-Etsu; and (2) a renewed
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the
alternative, for failure to state a claim filed by Formosa. For the
reasons discussed, the Court grants Shin-Etsu's and Formosa's
motions to dismiss, finding that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over either of these corporations.
Background
The instant actions relate to a purported anticompetitive
conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in
the United States. The details of the alleged conspiracy are set
forth at length in the Court's Decision and Order dated March 27,
2020, resolving several prior motions to dismiss (the "March 27th
Decision").
The procedural background of these matters is also set forth in
detail in the March 27th Decision. The Court sets forth the salient
and subsequent procedural developments. It is necessary to note as
an initial matter that there are two operative complaints in this
matter--a consolidated class action complaint filed by Amrex
Chemical Co., Inc., Finch Paper, LLC, Main Pool & Chemical Company,
Inc., Miami Products & Chemical Company, Midwest Renewable Energy
LLC, Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc., and VanDeMark Chemical, Inc.
(collectively the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs") (the "direct
purchaser complaint")) and a consolidated class action complaint
filed by The Tripp Plating Works, Inc. and Precious Plate, Inc.
(collectively the "Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs") (the "indirect
purchaser complaint")).
Shin-Etsu and Formosa previously filed motions to dismiss the
claims set forth in the direct purchaser complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction. In its Match 27th Decision, the Court denied
Shin-Etsu's and Formosa's motions without prejudice to renewal
after completion of jurisdictional discovery.
Shin-Etsu filed its renewed motion to dismiss on Nov. 30, 2020,
seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it in both the
direct purchaser complaint and the indirect purchaser complaint.
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on Dec. 10,
2020, and indicated therein that "The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs
join this opposition to Shin-Etsu's motion." Shin-Etsu filed its
reply on Dec. 31, 2020.
Formosa filed its renewed motion to dismiss on Feb. 8, 2021, also
seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it in both the
direct purchaser complaint and the indirect purchaser complaint.
The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on March 1,
2021, again noting that "The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs join
this opposition to [Formosa's] motion." Formosa filed its reply on
March 22, 2021.
A. Shin-Etsu
Shin-Etsu is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
business in Tokyo, and Shintech, which is based in the United
States, is one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Plaintiffs
argue that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over
Shin-Etsu because: (1) Shin-Etsu directly participated in conduct
related to the instant lawsuit; (2) Shin-Etsu exercised "some
control" over Shintech's caustic soda business; and (3) Shin-Etsu
is an alter-ego of Shintech. These contentions cannot bear
scrutiny, District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford notes.
Before delving into the specifics of the Plaintiffs' arguments as
to Shin-Etsu, the Court addresses first an issue that permeates the
Plaintiffs' opposition. It is undisputed that Yasuhiko Saitoh
("Saitoh") is president of both Shin-Etsu and Shintech. The
Plaintiffs' personal jurisdiction arguments as to Shin-Etsu rely
almost entirely on this fact, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs contend
that Saitoh's actions, even when taken in his capacity as president
of Shintech, are attributable to Shin-Etsu. However, this
contention runs afoul of well-established caselaw and, accordingly,
cannot be sustained, Judge Wolford holds.
As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Bestfoods, 524
U.S. 51 (1998), "it is entirely appropriate for directors of a
parent corporation to serve as directors of its subsidiary, and
that fact alone may not serve to expose the parent corporation to
liability for its subsidiary's acts," Judge Wolford explains.
Judge Wolford finds that the Plaintiffs have not addressed
Bestfoods and its progeny and have not come forward with or pointed
to any evidence from which the Court could conclude that Saitoh was
wearing his "parent hat" when taking actions on behalf of Shintech.
Accordingly, they have not rebutted the presumption that Saitoh's
actions taken while acting as president of Shintech are not
attributable to Shin-Etsu.
The "contacts" identified by the Plaintiffs simply are not enough
to demonstrate that Shin-Etsu purposefully availed itself of the
forum by deliberately directing its conduct at the United States
and that the matter at issue. . . arose out of, or is sufficiently
related to, Shin-Etsu's in-forum conduct, Judge Wolford opines,
citing Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F.Supp.3d 310, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).
As to the first of the claimed contacts, the Plaintiffs have
submitted to the Court evidence that (1) Saitoh was identified as
the president of Shin-Etsu on a list of planned attendees at a
Shintech meeting with a caustic soda customer and (2) that Toshiaki
Ansai ("Ansai"), Shintech's vice-president, identified Saitoh as
the "President of Shin-Etsu/Shintech" in an email thread discussing
a letter that Ansai sent to a third-party complaining about its
reporting of caustic soda export prices in the United States.
The first of these actions is completely untethered to the
price-fixing conspiracy alleged by the Plaintiffs; there is no
evidence that any sales of caustic soda were made or even discussed
at the meeting in question, Judge Wolford observes, among other
things. As such, even assuming the Saitoh was wearing his "parent
hat" at this meeting, that does not implicate Shin-Etsu in the
conduct at issue in this lawsuit.
In sum, the Plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence from
which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Shin-Etsu had
sufficient direct contacts with the United States related to the
alleged price-fixing conspiracy at issue in this lawsuit to support
an exercise of personal jurisdiction, Judge Wolford holds.
Judge Wolford again notes that there is no basis for the conclusion
that Saitoh was actually acting on behalf of Shin-Etsu when
functioning as Shintech's president. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
assertions regarding Saitoh's involvement in the management and
supervision of Shintech's caustic soda operations, including his
communications with Ansai regarding a caustic soda price index,
cannot establish personal jurisdiction over Shin-Etsu.
Viewing the evidence regarding actions taken by Saitoh in the
appropriate context, the Plaintiffs have not identified evidence
from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Shin-Etsu
and Shintech were involved in a "common business enterprise"
related to caustic soda, Judge Wolford finds. On this record, the
Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Shin-Etsu on an
agency theory.
The Plaintiffs' final argument as to Shin-Etsu is that Shintech can
be considered Shin-Etsu's alter-ego for purposes of personal
jurisdiction. This argument warrants little discussion, as it is
wholly contradicted by the evidence of record, Judge Wolford
notes.
In considering whether a subsidiary is the parent corporation's
alter-ego for jurisdictional purposes, the Court considers the
failure to observe corporate formality; inadequate capitalization;
intermingling of personal and corporate funds, and the sharing of
common office space, among other things. Judge Wolford opines that
in this case, the relevant considerations overwhelmingly
demonstrate that Shintech is not a mere shell.
Judge Wolford opines that it is undisputed that Shintech is
robustly capitalized, and the Plaintiffs similarly concede that
Shin-Etsu and Shintech have many separate employees and offices
worldwide, and have generally respected corporate formalities. On
this record, a rational factfinder could not find that Shintech is
Shin-Etsu's alter-ego.
For all these reasons, the Court finds that Shin-Etsu has
demonstrated its entitlement to dismissal of the claims against it
for lack of personal jurisdiction.
B. Formosa
The Court turns next to Formosa's assertion that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over it. As the Court explained in the March
27th Decision, Formosa is a Taiwanese parent corporation to Formosa
USA. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court can exercise personal
jurisdiction over Formosa based on: (1) Formosa's direct influence
and participation in the United States caustic soda market; and (2)
an agency relationship between Formosa and Formosa USA.
As an initial matter, the Court notes that in its reply papers,
Formosa asks the Court to strike portions of the attorney
declaration of C. Andrew Dirksen on the basis that they contain
inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant attorney commentary. The Court
declines to strike any portion of the Dirksen Declaration, inasmuch
as Formosa has failed to make any legal argument as to the
propriety of that remedy. However, the Court agrees with Formosa
that much of the Dirksen Declaration is not admissible evidence
and, thus, cannot be relied upon to provide the necessary support
for an exercise of personal jurisdiction.
The Plaintiffs' arguments regarding Formosa's purported direct
contacts with the United States' caustic soda market rely largely
on their position that Formosa made sales of caustic soda to three
customers in the United States, using Formosa USA as a mere nominal
middleman. Formosa strongly disputes this characterization of its
conduct, contending that it sold caustic soda to Formosa USA in
Taiwan, and Formosa USA then resold the materials to its own
customers without any involvement on Formosa's part other than
delivering the material as directed by its customer, Formosa USA.
Formosa further argues that no reasonable factfinder could resolve
this dispute in the Plaintiffs' favor, because the Plaintiffs'
argument is based on attorney speculation and inadmissible hearsay,
whereas Formosa has submitted sworn declarations from individuals
with personal knowledge of the facts.
The Court agrees with Formosa. Formosa has satisfied this burden
and has submitted to the Court sworn declarations by individuals
with personal knowledge confirming that the United States-based
corporations at issue were not, as the Plaintiffs claim, de facto
customers of Formosa, Judge Wolford holds.
In opposition to Formosa's motion, the Plaintiffs rely on the
Dirksen Declaration. In the Dirksen Declaration, counsel makes
numerous assertions about Formosa's and Formosa USA's sales to the
three United States customers at issue, based on an analysis and
comparison of Formosa's and Formosa USA's transactional sales date
by Plaintiffs' economic consultants.
Counsel's secondhand summary of an analysis performed by unnamed
economic experts whose credentials have not even been provided to
the Court is not admissible evidence, Judge Wolford holds, citing
Hollander v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d 192, 202 (2d Cir. 1999).
Considering only the admissible evidence, no reasonable factfinder
could conclude that Formosa made direct sales to the three United
States-based companies identified by the Plaintiffs, nor that it
attended multiple trade conferences in the United States, as the
Plaintiffs contend, Judge Wolford finds. Instead, the record before
the Court demonstrates that the only contact with the United States
that Formosa had during the relevant time period, is a single trip
to Texas, around the time of the 2017 International Petrochemical
Conference hosted by non-party American Fuel and Petrochemical
Manufacturers ("AFPM"), at which Formosa representatives discussed
the sale of caustic soda with employees of Formosa USA.
The Plaintiffs have failed to connect this single trip to the
United States to the unlawful conduct alleged in this lawsuit, much
less to show that it was a but-for cause of their claimed injuries,
Judge Wolford concludes. She adds that the Plaintiffs also make a
somewhat convoluted argument that Formosa engaged in conduct aimed
at the United States by withholding caustic soda from the United
States' market. However, Formosa has presented unrebutted evidence
that its sales of caustic soda to Formosa USA actually increased
from 2016 to 2018.
For all these reasons, the Court finds that it cannot exercise
personal jurisdiction over Formosa based on its own direct contacts
with the United States.
The Court further concludes that no reasonable factfinder could
determine that Formosa USA was acting as Formosa's agent with
respect to its caustic soda operations in the United States. As an
initial matter, the Court notes that in making many of their
arguments regarding agency, the Plaintiffs have erroneously
conflated Walter Chen, the former executive vice-president of
Formosa USA, with Shao-Ter Chen, the current vice-president of
Formosa. Formosa has established that Walter Chen and Shao-Ter Chen
are two different people, and so the Plaintiffs' arguments that
rely on the assumption that Walter Chen was an executive at both
Formosa and Formosa USA are without merit and are, accordingly,
disregarded by the Court.
The Plaintiffs' remaining arguments, in essence, are that Formosa
provided Formosa USA with "guidance" regarding "U.S. caustic soda
market sales." However, providing advice and guidance is very
different than exercising control, as is required for a finding of
agency, Judge Wolford notes.
In sum, Judge Wolford holds, no rational factfinder could conclude,
based on the evidence before the Court, that Formosa USA was acting
as Formosa's agent with respect to the conduct at issue in this
lawsuit. Formosa has demonstrated its entitlement to dismissal for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Having reached this conclusion, the
Court need not and does not reach Formosa's alternative request for
dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this Decision and Order, the Court
grants Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd.'s and Formosa Plastics
Corporation's respective motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and the Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims against these Defendants are dismissed
without prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is direct to terminate Shin-Etsu Chemical Co.
Ltd. and Formosa Plastics Corporation as defendants in these
actions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated June 24,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/wtjvv29t from
Leagle.com.
OPTION CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses' Overtime Wages, Folan Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER FOLAN; and ROBIN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPTION CARE HEALTH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03385 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2021) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nurses.
Option Care Health, Inc. provides infusion and home care management
solutions. The Company offers products, services, and
condition-specific clinical management programs for
gastrointestinal abnormalities, infectious diseases, cancer, organ
and blood cell transplants, bleeding disorders, and heart failures.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
-and-
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Alan Quiles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
PALISADES ACQUISITION: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MCCROBIE,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC, ASTA FUNDING, INC. HOUSLANGER &
ASSOCIATES, PLLC, AND TODD E. HOUSLANGER, Case No.
1:15-cv-00018-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendants contend that the
proposed class does not meet the rigorous requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and, as such, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification must be denied.
This case arises out of a valid and enforceable default judgment
entered by the Buffalo City Court against the Plaintiff, stemming
from an unpaid credit card debt. The Plaintiff claims that the
defendants' attempts to collect on this valid and enforceable
judgment violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
Unlike an FDCPA case where a plaintiff, on behalf of a purported
class, claims a debt collector has engaged in some routine,
repeated, violation common to everyone they attempted to collect
debts from -- such as issuing letters that do not comply with
initial communication requirements or using improper service
methods -- this case involves issues that are unique to the
Plaintiff.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he had no knowledge of the
lawsuit or default judgment against him, that his particular debt
was not properly assigned to defendant Palisades, and that he,
individually, did not receive notice of the assignment. The
Plaintiff claims that this lack of notice constitutes a violation
of the FDCPA and that the Houslanger Defendants' alleged failure to
ensure he received such a notice before issuing an income execution
on the valid judgment against him violated the FDCPA.
Palisades is a New Jersey-based collection agency.
The Attorneys for the Defendants are:
Jonathan B. Bruno, Esq.
Michelle L. Vizzi, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
477 Madison Ave., Suite 410
New York, NY 10022-5843
Telephone: (212) 455-9555
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 2, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hk42lC at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAR ELECTRICAL: Curley Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KOREY CURLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PAR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00019761-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
June 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01200-GPC-AGS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods;
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to
pay wages timely to terminated employees; failure to maintain
accurate records; unfair competition law; and civil penalties.
Par Electrical Contractors, Inc. is a construction engineering
company, with its principal place of business in Kansas City,
Missouri. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
Cynthia L. Marks, Esq.
CARLSBAD LAW GROUP, LLP
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 300
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (858) 793-6244
Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
E-mail: sslattery@carlsbadlawgroup.com
cmarks@carlsbadlawgroup.com
PARK AVENUE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park Avenue Leather
Goods LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Park Avenue
Leather Goods LLC doing business as: T. Anthony LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05740 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
T. Anthony -- https://tanthony.com/ -- offers are high-end luggage
experts, famed American Heritage brand offering a selection of fine
leather goods and travel accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Philips CPAP Machine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Rogers and Rice Harbut Elliott LLP have jointly issued a
national class action on behalf of all persons in Canada who used a
Philips CPAP machine, BIPAP machine or mechanical ventilator which
are currently subject to a recall by the company.
On June 14, 2021, Philips Respironics issued a recall notice in the
US for approximately 35 models of its Respiratory Devices that were
manufactured with a Polyester-Based Polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound
abatement foam. Exposure to the PE-PUR foam can have adverse health
effects including, but not limited to, increased cancer risk,
respiratory damage, asthma, nausea, vomiting, and headache.
As of June 23, 2021, Health Canada recalled all of the subject
Respiratory Devices.
It is alleged that Philips Respironics negligently designed and
manufactured the Respiratory Devices and failed to warn users of
the health risks associated with use of the Respiratory Devices,
while assuring users of the safety of its products.
The Representative Plaintiff, John Morel, was diagnosed with sleep
apnea and purchased a Philips Dreamstation CPAP machine in 2019.
Commenting on learning about the health risks associated with the
machine, he states:
"I was horrified to learn that my CPAP machine, which blows air
into my lungs, could contain toxic particles. I relied on this
device to treat my sleep apnea and I am concerned for my health. I
have questions about when Philips became aware of the issue and if
this could have been disclosed earlier."
For further information regarding this claim, please contact:
Stephen Birman at Thomson Rogers (sbirman@thomsonrogers.com or
416-868-3137); or
Robert Ben at Thomson Rogers (rben@thomsonrogers.com or
416-868-3168); or
Lucy Jackson at Thomson, Rogers (ljackson@thomsonrogers.com or
416-868-3154); or
Anthony Leoni at Rice Harbut Elliott LLP (aleoni@rhelaw.com or
604-682-3771); or
Jaclyn Vanstone at Rice Harbut Elliott LLP (jvanstone@rhelaw.com or
604-682-3771). [GN]
POINT LOMA: Faces Singh Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
ASHA SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POINT LOMA REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00028133-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 30,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest
breaks, failure to reimburse all business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide paid
sick leave, failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' rehabilitation center as a
non-exempt employee since 2017.
Point Loma Rehabilitation Center, LLC is an operator of
rehabilitation centers, with its principal place of business in San
Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Damaris A. Martinez, individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC, John Does 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-003926-21 was transferred
from the Essex County Superior Court, Law Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13311 to the
proceeding.
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 appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 548-2167
Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com
POST FOODS: Judge Finalizes Attorney Fees in Labeling Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge on June 25 finalized
attorney fees worth nearly $5.5 million in a settlement that ended
a class action against Post Foods LLC on misleading cereal box
labels. [GN]
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: High Court Tosses Appeal in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 rejected
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's bid for review of a Second Circuit
holding that roughly 17,000 retirees could receive money damages in
a long-running class action over how the accounting firm calculated
lump-sum benefits. [GN]
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Keirsted Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WENDY KEIRSTED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No.
6:21-cv-00778, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on June 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 7:21-cv-05648-UA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading
advertising, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with the
sale of its Crest brand Gum & Enamel Repair toothpaste.
The Proctor & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William Wright, Esq.
THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33410
Telephone: (561) 514-0904
Facsimile: (561) 514-0905
E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com
- and –
Daniel Faherty, Esq.
TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL
815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201
Titusville, FL 32780
Telephone: (321) 269-6833
Facsimile: (321) 383-9970
E-mail: danfaherty@hotmail.com
CGuntner@ctrfa.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Rochester City SD Set to Settle Opioid Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Murphy, writing for Rochester Democrat and Chronicle,
reports that the Rochester City School District and other districts
across the country are poised to settle a pair of lawsuits against
pharmaceutical manufacturers for unethical behavior in distributing
opioids, bringing an unspecified pot of money for programs intended
to combat the effects of opioid addiction.
The lawsuits were against Purdue and Mallinckrodt, two large drug
companies that filed for bankruptcy protection in the face of
massive claims from individuals and governments affected by their
alleged indiscriminate distribution of highly addictive opioids.
Both lawsuits involve dozens of school districts across the
country. RCSD also remains involved in one large outstanding
class-action lawsuit and another against a third company in
bankruptcy, the Rochester Drug Cooperative, General Counsel Steve
Carling said.
"We expect as time goes on we'll see more of these type of
settlements, either from bankruptcies or direct action," Carling
said.
The lawsuits make two claims: first, that students have been harmed
by the companies' opioid distribution, either because they
themselves became addicted or because their parents or guardians
did.
"Because of Defendants' horrific wrongdoing, which created the
worst man-made
epidemic in history, births of children with prenatal opioid
exposure have increased
exponentially since the onslaught of the opioid epidemic, and they
show no signs of slowing down," the plaintiffs in one class-action
suit wrote. "As a result, our nations' public schools will be
straddled with the extra costs of education of children with
prenatal opioid exposure for years to come."
Second, RCSD and other districts are seeking damages for the harm
done to employees. RCSD is self-insured and therefore has faced
mounting expenses for drug counseling, for instance.
'All the help we can get'
Statistics compiled by Common Ground Health from 2014-16 show that
urban residents were by far the most likely to visit the emergency
room for an opioid overdose.
White and Latino people were the hardest hit across all geographic
sectors. But urban Black residents, too, visited the emergency room
at a greater rate than white or Latino people in suburban or rural
areas.
No other districts in Monroe County are involved in the lawsuits;
neither are any of New York's other large urban districts. RCSD
became involved in litigation at the suggestion of board member
Ricardo Adams.
The idea came shortly after an issue with an employee abusing
opioids, he said.
"I felt really strongly about fighting back and resisting the big
pharmaceutical companies," he said. "Anything we can do to help
families."
The Purdue and Mallinckrodt lawsuits have not yet been officially
settled. The school board voted to agree to settle them.
Because RCSD has been one of the most active parties in the
litigation, it likely will receive a direct cash award, albeit a
small one, Carling said. Litigation attorney Alison Moyer has been
spearheading the effort.
A potentially greater pool of money also will be made available to
fund programs in school districts meant to address problems caused
among students, families and staff members who abused opioids.
That could mean, for instance, additional funding for special
education services for children born with cognitive disabilities
due to their parents abusing opioids. Carling likened the opioid
class-action lawsuit to earlier campaigns regarding tobacco and
lead paint.
"We're a struggling community," Adams said. "We need all the help
we can get." [GN]
REKOR SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume
Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.
Class Period: April 12, 2019 and May 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
No obligation or cost to you.
Learn more about your recoverable losses in REKR:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/rekor-systems-inc-f-k-a-novume-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17366&from=5
Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. NEWS - REKR NEWS
CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Rekor
Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Rekor's ALPR technology and UVED-related business is outclassed by
global competitors with an established, dominant market share; (ii)
it was unlikely that states would pass legislation authorizing
deals similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED partnership because of,
inter alia, state and local privacy laws and related public
concerns; (iii) Rekor's UVED partnership was not as profitable as
Defendants had led investors to believe because of known
impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the
partnership; (iv) accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential
revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related
business prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Rekor Systems you have until August 30, 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.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Rekor Systems securities during
the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the REKR lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link.
ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
REKOR SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of August 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc.
(NASDAQ: REKR) (NASDAQ: NVMM) between April 12, 2019 and May 25,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than August 30, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Rekor 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 Rekor class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2112.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 August 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) Rekor's automatic license plate
recognition ("ALPR") technology and uninsured vehicle enforcement
diversion ("UVED") related business are outclassed by global
competitors with an established, dominant market share; (2) it was
unlikely that states would pass legislation authorizing deals
similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED partnership because of, among
other things, state and local privacy laws and related public
concerns; (3) Rekor's UVED partnership was not as profitable as
defendants had led investors to believe because of known
impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the
partnership; (4) accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential
revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR and UVED related business
prospects; and (5) 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 Rekor class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2112.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. [GN]
REKOR SYSTEMS: Schall Law Firm Reminds August 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Rekor Systems,
Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. ('Rekor' or 'the Company')
(NASDAQ:REKR) (NVMM) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 12,
2019 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 30, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/rekor-systems-inc/#case-form to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Rekor's business in automatic license
plate recognition ('ALPR') technology and uninsured vehicle
enforcement diversion ('UVED') was not competitive with competitors
that already held a dominant market share. It was unlikely that
other states would approve legislation allowing deals with the
Company similar to its partnership in Oklahoma due to privacy
concerns. The Company's UVED partnership had not attained the level
of profitability that it had touted to the market. 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 Rekor, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
RISHAVENA INC: Fails to Pay Coordinators' Wages, Millien Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTHMELLE MILLIEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RISHAVENA, INC.; RISHAVENA HOME HEALTH CARE
AGENCY INC.; MARC RICHARD HILAIRE; VENA LAURENT-HILAIRE; TALHIA
DUCHATELIER; ABRAHAM STEEL; and ALIX LAURENT, Defendants, Case No.
515845/2021 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Kings Cty., June 29, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to pay wages
due.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a client service
coordinator from May 20, 2016 until on May 11, 2018.
Rishavena, Inc. is a health care agency, with its principal place
of business located at 1338 East 69th Street, Brooklyn, New York.
Rishavena Home Health Care Agency Inc. is a home health care agency
with its principal place of business located at 1338 East 69th
Street, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Paul Mouton, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY P. MOUTON, JR., LLC
1441 Broadway, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (646) 706-7481
E-mail: gmouton@moutonlawnyc.com
ROACH & MURTHA: Burgess Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roach & Murtha
Attorneys at Law, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Owen Burgess,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C., Gemini Equities, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03730 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. --
https://www.roachcollections.com/ -- is a law firm in East
Farmingdale, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
ROCKET COMPANIES: Gross Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Rocket Companies,
Inc. (NYSE: RKT).
Shareholders who purchased shares of RKT during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17338&from=5
CLASS PERIOD : February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021
ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Rocket's gain on sale margins
were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of
increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift
toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and
compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle
for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale
market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner
Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above
were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins
were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six
months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market
conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to
achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the
Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen
since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated
due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins
had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) 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.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Rocket
Companies, Inc. ("Rocket" or the "Company") (NYSE: RKT) Class A
common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Rocket investors have until August 30, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Rocket investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On May 5, 2021, Rocket announced first quarter 2021 financial
results and second quarter 2021 outlook in a press release,
reporting that it expected closed loan volume within a range of
only $82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins
within a range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of
2021. The midpoint of this gain on sale margin estimate represented
a 239 basis point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point
decline sequentially, which was Rocket's lowest quarterly gain on
sale margin in two years and reflected that favorable market
conditions recently touted by the Company had in fact reversed.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.79, or nearly 17%,
to close at $19.01 per share on May 6, 2021.
On this news, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock
fell by nearly 17% to close at $19.01 per share. The price of
Rocket Companies Class A common stock continued to decline, falling
to a low of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Rocket's gain
on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years
as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment, and compression in the price spread between the primary
and secondary mortgage markets; (2) Rocket was engaged in a price
war and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's
Partner Network operating segment; (3) the adverse trends
identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain
on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points
in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a result of the foregoing,
the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period
and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale
margins had vanished as Rocket's gain on sale margins had returned
to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (5) rather than
remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's company-wide
gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical
averages; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Rocket's Class A common stock, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT) ("Rocket") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Rocket Class A common
stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Rocket Class
A common stock during the Class Period may, no later than August
30, 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/rocket-companies-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rocket
Rocket is an online mortgage lender that operates the Rocket
Mortgage online platform, which allows clients to apply for and
service mortgages through the Internet or by using Rocket's
proprietary mobile phone app. Ninety percent of Rocket's revenues
are derived from originating, closing, selling and servicing home
mortgages. Rocket operates two primary segments: (1) the
Direct-to-Consumer segment; and (2) the Partner Network segment. In
its Partner Network, Rocket partners with third parties who utilize
its platform to provide their clients with mortgage solutions. The
Partner Network has lower operating margins because Rocket shares
profits with its partners.
The Class Period commences on February 25, 2021, when Rocket issued
a press release titled, in part, "Rocket Companies Experiences
Explosive Growth," which announced Rocket's financial results for
the fourth quarter and full year of 2020. Rocket reported, among
other things, closed loan origination volume of $107.2 billion and
gain on sale margin of 4.41% for the fourth quarter. Rocket
emphasized that it had "[i]ncreased gain on sale margin by 100
basis points year-over-year" during the quarter and "[i]ncreased
gain on sale margin by 127 basis points year-over-year to 4.46%"
for the full-year period. Throughout the Class Period, Rocket
continued to tout its business operations and downplayed the
effects of competition on Rocket's gain on sale margins.
The truth was revealed on May 5, 2021, when Rocket issued a press
release announcing its first quarter results and second quarter
outlook. Rocket reported that it was on track to achieve closed
loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and $87.5 billion
and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for
the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this gain on sale
margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline year-over-year
and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which represented
Rocket's lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years.
Following this news, the price of Rocket's Class A common stock
dropped from $22.80 per share when the market closed on May 5, 2021
to $19.01 per share when the market closed on May 6, 2021, a nearly
17% decline.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Rocket's gain on sale margins were contracting
at the highest rate in two years as a result of increased
competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the
lower margin Partner Network operating segment and compression in
the price spread between the primary and secondary mortgage
markets; (2) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle for
market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market,
which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner Network
operating segment; (3) the adverse trends were accelerating and, as
a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at
least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a
result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had
preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve
historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket's
gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the
first quarter of 2019; (5) rather than remaining elevated due to
surging demand, Rocket's gain on sale margins had fallen materially
below recent historical averages; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Rocket's
business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
Rocket investors may, no later than August 30, 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. [GN]
SANTA ROSA: Papadimitropoulos Labor Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CONSTANTINO PAPADIMITROPOULOS, MARVIN MENDOZA, and
JOYCE VALLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-11779,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on June 29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00497 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime, and unfair competition.
Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc. is a provider of management consulting
services, headquartered in Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN McMANUS, P.C.
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
- and –
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
nbishop@jsyc.com
- and –
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6500
Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com
SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Mitchell, writing for Becker's Health IT, reports that from
a former Mayo Clinic physician being sued for accessing patient
data to four class-action lawsuits launched on Scripps Health after
it faced a ransomware attack, here are the lawsuits and settlements
over data breaches making headlines:
1. Ahmad Maher Abdel-Munim Alsughayer, MD, a former physician at
Mayo Clinic, is facing a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized
computer access and two class-action lawsuits, after allegedly
inappropriately accessing patients' protected health information
during his employment.
2. Four class-action lawsuits have been filed against San
Diego-based Scripps Health after an April 29 malware attack that
exposed more than 147,000 patients' health information.
3. Louisville, Ky.-based Humana is being sued over a data breach
last fall that exposed the personal information of about 65,000 of
its health plan members.
4. A U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska judge
preliminarily approved a settlement June 4 over a Nebraska Medicine
data breach in fall 2020 that exposed tens of thousands of
patients' protected health information. A settlement will be paid
to about 140,000 patients whose data was exposed.
5. A data breach on San Antonio-based CaptureRx that affected 1.6
million patients and 170 healthcare providers has sparked two
nationwide class-action lawsuits. [GN]
SEEKING ALPHA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seeking Alpha Inc.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Seeking Alpha Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03750 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Seeking Alpha -- https://seekingalpha.com/ -- is a crowd-sourced
content service for financial markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
SKILLZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming July 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp.
("Skillz" or the "Company") (NYSE: SKLZ) securities between
December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Skillz 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/skillz-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 March 8, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report about the
Company alleging that the growth speculations from Skillz and its
insiders were "entirely unrealistic" and that Skillz's top three
games, representing 88% of Skillz's revenue, reported a decline in
downloads since the third quarter of 2020.
On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 10.9%,
to close at $24.45, thereby injuring investors.
On April 19, 2021, Eagle Eye Research posted an anonymous report on
Twitter in which it claimed that, through the use of providing
users with incentive Bonus Payments, "the company likely recognizes
substantial non-cash revenue and [] cash revenues may be less than
½ of GAAP revenue."
On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 6.61%,
to close at $14.11 on April 19, 2021. Shares continued to decline
to close at $12.55 on April 20, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) three games responsible for a majority of Skillz's
revenues had declined substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue
recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the
company; (3) unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android
market; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 7, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Harris Sues Over Fruit Drinks' Deceptive Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DARLENE HARRIS, ANNEMARIE NEWBOLD, and STEPHANIE ESCOBAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SNAPPLE BEVERAGE CORP. and KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-at-00599 (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach
of express warranty, and violations of California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and California
Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint the Defendants are engaged in false,
misleading, and deceptive advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Snapple beverage products. The Defendants represent the products as
"All Natural" but in reality, the products contain coloring
additives. As a result of the Defendants' alleged
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed.
They would not have purchased the products had they known that the
products contained coloring additives.
Snapple Beverage Corp. is a beverage company based in Plano,
Texas.
Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. is an American multinational soft drink
company headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
SOUTHERN THERAPY: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BAILEY and LANA
LUFT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHERN THERAPY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02445-SDG (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying this case as a collective action and authorizing
issuance of notice to Potential Class Members.
The Plaintiffs pray that this matter be decided in an expedited
manner and that the contact information for Potential Class Members
be ordered to be disclosed in an expedited manner.
The Plaintiffs have moved to certify two classes of current and
former employees within one collective action lawsuit, as opposed
to filing two separate collective action lawsuits against the same
defendant with substantially similar allegations.
The Defendant argues that the different job titles and alleged
different payment methods should prevent conditional certification
of this matter, but that cannot be true. "Uniformity in job
description and pay provisions is not warranted" or required in the
conditional certification context. Lopez v. STS Consulting Serv.,
LLC, Case No. 6:16-CV-246-RWS-JDL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188605
(E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016). While the Plaintiffs do not claim to
have shown "uniformity" between the Plaintiffs and putative class
members -- they have shown similarity, and that is what is required
under Lusardi and its progeny.
Southern Therapy is a therapist-owned rehabilitation company that
has served the citizens of West Georgia and East Alabama for over
30 years.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 5,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hHPZFB
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Loren, Esq.
GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
1776 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 224
Plantation, FL 33322
Telephone: (954)585-4878
Facsimile: (954)585-4886
E-mail: JLoren@goldbergloren.com
The Counsel for the Defendant Southern Therapy Services, Inc.,
are:
Warren R. Hall Jr., Esq.
Elizabeth M. Newton, Esq.
Kristina K. Griffin, Esq.
HALL, GILLIGAN, ROBERTS & SHANLEVER LLP
3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 1900
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 442-8776
Facsimile: (404) 537-5555
E-mail: whall@hgrslaw.com
enewton@hgrslaw.com
kgriffin@hgrslaw.com
SUN LIFE: Refuses Change to Death Benefit Option C, Insurers Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGHTON TRUSTEES, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for COOK STREET
MASTER TRUST III and DIAMOND LS TRUST; and BANK OF UTAH, solely as
securities intermediary for COOK STREET MASTER TRUST III and
DIAMOND LS TRUST; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05644-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to grant the
Plaintiffs' request to switch to Death Benefit Option C of Sun Life
Class Policies. The Defendant's rejection of the request
contradicts the contract language saying that the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated policyowners may change Death Benefit
option after the first policy year. By this action, the Plaintiffs
and Class members seek damages and injunctive and declaratory
relief to require Sun Life to abide by the plain terms of the Class
Policies it issued and insures, and allow policyowners to change to
Death Benefit Option C after the first policy year.
Brighton Trustees, LLC is a limited liability company based in New
York.
Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate
headquarters in Ogden, Utah.
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is an insurance company
headquartered in Wellesley, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth Ard, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 336-8330
Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
- and –
Steven Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
SYNNEX CORPORATION: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Kent Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNNEX CORPORATION; KEVIN MURAI; DWIGHT
STEFFENSEN; DENNIS POLK; FRED BREIDENBACH; LAURIE SIMON HODRICK;
HAU LEE; MATTHEW MIAU; ANN VEZINA; THOMAS WURSTER; DUANE ZITZNER;
and ANDREA ZULBERTI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00888-UNA (D.
Del., June 22, 2021) is an action alleging violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking to enjoin the vote on a
proposed transaction, pursuant to which SYNNEX will merge with Tech
Data Corporation ("Tech Data") through Tiger Parent (AP)
Corporation ("Tiger Parent"), Spire Sub I, Inc. ("Merger Sub I"),
and Spire Sub II, LLC ("Merger Sub II") (the "Proposed
Transaction").
According to the complaint, on March 22, 2021, SYNNEX and Tech Data
jointly announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger dated March 22, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger
Agreement provides that the aggregate consideration for all issued
and outstanding shares of Tiger Parent will consist of (i) $1.61
billion in cash ($1.1 billion in cash after giving effect to the
$500 million equity contribution by Tiger Parent Holdings, L.P.
("Tiger Holdings"), Tiger Parent's sole stockholder and an
affiliate of Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("Apollo")), to Tiger
Parent, and (ii) 44 million shares of SYNNEX common stock (the
"Merger Consideration"). Following completion of the Proposed
Transaction, SYNNEX shareholders will own approximately 55% of the
combined entity, with Apollo owning approximately 45%.
On June 9, 2021, SYNNEX filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that SYNNEX stockholders vote in favor
of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material
information critical to stockholders' decision whether to approve
the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such
material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleges the suit.
It is imperative that the material information omitted from the
Proxy Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to
the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights.
For these reasons and as set forth herein, Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed
Transaction unless and until the material information discussed
below is disclosed to the Company's stockholders or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.
SYNNEX Corporation provides information technology supply chain
services. The Company offers services to original equipment
manufacturers and software publishers worldwide. SYNNEX offers
product distribution, related logistics, and contract assembly
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29,
2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the
interlocutory appeal of the District Court's decision denying the
company's motion to dismiss, is still pending.
In December 2013, the first of two antitrust class action lawsuits
was filed against Takeda in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York by a putative class of patients who
were prescribed ACTOS.
The second class action was filed against Takeda in the same court
in April 2015 by a putative class of wholesalers that purchased
ACTOS from Takeda.
In both actions, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Takeda
improperly characterized certain patents for ACTOS in the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book, which they claim imposed
requirements on generic companies that filed Abbreviated New Drug
Applications and, in turn, resulted in delayed market entry for
generic forms of ACTOS.
In October 2019, the District Court denied Takeda's motion to
dismiss.
Takeda subsequently sought an interlocutory appeal of the District
Court's decision which is still pending.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is the largest pharmaceutical
company in Asia and one of the top 20 largest pharmaceutical
companies in the world by revenue. The company has over 30,000
employees worldwide and achieved 16.2 billion USD in revenue during
the 2012 fiscal year.
TARENA INT'L: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on June 28 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Tarena International, Inc. ("Tarena" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
TEDU) securities or American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between
August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Tarena investors have until August 23, 2021 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Tarena investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On April 30, 2019, Tarena revealed that it could not timely file
its fiscal 2018 annual report due to an ongoing "review of certain
issues identified during the course of the audit of the
registrant's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2018, including issues related to the registrant's revenue
recognition."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs price fell 1.2%, to close at $5.02 per
ADS on May 1, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
On May 17, 2019, the Company disclosed that it was notified Tarena
was not in compliance with NASDAQ listing rules due to the failure
to timely file its 2018 annual report.
On this news, Tarena's ADSs fell 4.8%, to close at $3.73 per ADS on
May 20, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
On July 24, 2019, Tarena disclosed that it expected that fiscal
2017 and prior periods "may need to be restated and should not be
relied upon, pending the completion of the Independent Audit
Committee Review."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs fell 4.7%, to close at $1.63 per ADS on
July 25, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
Finally, on November 1, 2019, Tarena announced the results of its
investigation, including a list of revenue inaccuracies for fiscal
years 2014 through 2018, expense inaccuracies and irregularities,
and undisclosed related party transactions. Tarena further
disclosed that it "anticipates that the total amount of revenue
misstatement between fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to be less than
RMB900 million, representing approximately 11.5% of the total
revenue previously reported by the Company for such period."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs dropped 9.4%, to open on November 4,
2019, the next trading day, at $0.76, thereby damaging investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) certain
employees were interfering with external audits of Tarena's
financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena suffered from
revenue and expense inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged in business
transactions with organizations owned, invested in or controlled by
Tarena employees or their family members, which in some instances
were not properly disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Tarena's financial statements from 2014 through the end
of Class Period were not accurate; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased the Company's ADSs, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of August 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TEDU) between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important August 23, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tarena 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 Tarena class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.html
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlorcall 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 August 23, 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) certain employees were
interfering with external audits of Tarena's financial statements
for certain periods; (2) Tarena suffered from revenue and expense
inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged in business transactions with
organizations owned, invested in or controlled by Tarena employees
or their family members, which in some instances were not properly
disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tarena's
financial statements from 2014 through the end of Class Period were
not accurate; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Tarena class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.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. [GN]
TEVA PHARMA: Suffolk County Jury to Decide on Opioid Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael O'Keeffe, writing for Newsday, reports that the Suffolk
County jury to decide if drug manufacturers and distributors are
liable for the opioid epidemic that has killed thousands of Long
Islanders received its initial instructions from the judge on June
28.
Opening arguments in the class-action lawsuit filed by Suffolk and
Nassau counties and state Attorney General Letitia James that
claims drug manufacturers and distributors aggressively pushed
opioid painkillers while minimizing the dangers were scheduled to
begin on June 29 at Touro College's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center
in Central Islip.
The landmark opioid litigation, before state Supreme Court Justice
Jerry Garguilo, will be the first of its kind in the nation to go
before jurors, who are expected to hear from hundreds of
witnesses.
"We are going to be able to, for the first time, give our story to
the jury of what has happened over the last two decades with
respect to the promotion, the marketing of opioids, and the
distribution of opioids that has created this massive flood
throughout all our communities in the country," said attorney Jayne
Conroy of Simmons, Hanly and Conroy, who is representing Suffolk.
"We are starting here because the problem is terrible in Suffolk
County, in Nassau County and in the State of New York," she added.
State and county officials say they hope to hold the companies
accountable for the death and misery caused by the opioid epidemic
-- and to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars for treatment,
recovery and prevention.
"Everybody has lost a family member or a friend or a friend's
family member," said Hunter Shkolnik of Napoli Shkolnik, an
attorney representing Nassau County. "It has been described as a
crime of the century, what has happened with the opioid epidemic.
We are going to lay it out in this courtroom and this will be the
first time all the players and their bad conduct are going to be
shown to the people of the United States, not just Long Island."
Defendants in the New York opioid litigation include Teva
Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Allegan Finance, Cardinal
Health, McKesson Corp., and Amerisource Bergen.
Another defendant -- Johnson & Johnson -- agreed to an 11th-hour
settlement to pay the state up to $230 million, the attorney
general's office announced on June 26.
The lawsuit could set a precedent for a future national settlement
with drug manufacturers and distributors, public health experts and
lawyers have said. [GN]
TEX MEX II: Onofre Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAVIER ONOFRE PENA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TEX MEX II, INC., doing business as TACOS
MATAMOROS RESTAURANT, ARMANDO MUNOZ, RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, and LUIS
MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03697 (E.D.N.Y., June 30,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, improper misappropriation of
tips, and improper withholding of tips.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bus person, food
runner, and waiter at Tacos Matamoros Restaurant in New York from
2004 to June 7, 2021.
Tex Mex II, Inc. is an owner and operator of Tacos Matamoros
Restaurant located at 4508 Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
TIER 1: Faces McCain Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL MCCAIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIER 1 COMPLETIONS SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02109 (S.D. Tex., June 28, 2021) brings
this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a "Wireline
Supervisor", claims that the Defendant classified him and other
similarly situated manual workers as exempt employee throughout
their employment with the Defendant. Although they routinely work
in excess of 40 hours, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay, the Plaintiff asserts.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual
workers, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and all other relief which they are entitled under the FLSA.
Tier 1 Completions Solutions, Inc. provides oil and gas services in
multiple states including Texas and Oklahoma. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
440 Louisiana, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (832) 798-1184
Fax: (832) 553-7261
E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com
TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE: Mayo Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David V. Mayo, for himself and others similarly
situated v. TitleMax of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 210502840 was
transferred from the Court Of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
July 2, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02964 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
TitleMax -- https://www.titlemax.com/delaware-title-loans/ --
provides title loans, in-store personal loans, and online personal
loans as alternative lending solutions for those in Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Richard J. Zack, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
3000 Two Logan Square, 18th & Arch Sts
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 981-4726
Email: richard.zack@troutman.com
TRANSUNION LLC: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that on June 25, 2021, the Supreme
Court issued its much-anticipated 5-4 ruling in TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez. In a 27-page decision by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court
reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding the certification
of a class of 8,185 consumers whom the credit reporting agency
TransUnion had mistakenly labeled as potential terrorists and drug
traffickers. Of this consumer class, only 1,853 class members'
misleading credit reports had been provided to third-parties. The
District Court had ruled that all class members had Article III
standing to pursue their Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims
against TransUnion to recover statutory damages. A federal jury
awarded the class $8.1 million in statutory damages and $52 million
in punitive damages. On appeal, TransUnion challenged the award on
the basis that the entire class lacked constitutional standing to
recover. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part.
The Court's Decision
Taking up the question, the Court clarified its prior holdings
concerning the concrete harm that is required to establish Article
III standing. Article III defines the scope of constitutional power
of federal courts to hear "cases and controversies" in which a
plaintiff has a "personal stake." To fall within the ambit of the
federal courts' constitutional authority, plaintiffs must show they
have suffered a concrete injury in fact. See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). In its recent and
often-discussed ruling also concerning the FCRA, Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, the Court noted that "Article III standing requires a
concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation," and
the concrete harm must be one "traditionally" recognized as
providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts. 578 U. S. 330,
340 (2016). Physical or monetary harms readily qualify as concrete
injuries under Article III, and intangible harms—like
reputational harms—can also be concrete.
Examining the facts of the case at hand, the Court noted that the
mere existence of inaccurate information, absent dissemination,
traditionally has not provided the basis for recovery in American
courts. However, the Court concluded, the 1,853 class members whose
inaccurate credit reports were provided to third-parties suffered a
harm that was akin to the harm suffered by victims of the
traditional tort of defamation. The Court had "no trouble"
concluding that these 1,853 class members suffered "a concrete harm
that qualifies as an injury in fact" when they were labeled as
terrorists in information TransUnion provided to third parties.
However, the Court also concluded that the 6,332 plaintiffs whose
reports were not provided to third-parties could not demonstrate
concrete harm. The Court acknowledged the risk of dissemination
could satisfy the concrete-harm requirement in the context of a
claim for injunctive relief to prevent release when the risk is
imminent and substantial. See Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341–342
(citing Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013)). But
the Court was persuaded by TransUnion that the mere risk of future
harm, without more, could not qualify for standing in a suit for
damages. The Court also rejected arguments that the entire class
had standing to assert claims that TransUnion's mailings were
formatted incorrectly and thus violated applicable law, because
only lead plaintiff Ramirez was shown to have even opened the
mailings, much less to have suffered concrete harm as a result.
The Dissenting Opinions
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice Thomas in a
dissent that criticized the majority for depriving consumers of a
remedy that Congress expressly provided to them. (If Justice
Ginsburg were still with us today, this dissent might well have
been the majority opinion.) Justice Thomas disputed the majority
view that violation of a statutory right could not in and of itself
inflict a concrete harm, whether by current or traditional
standards. He wrote, "[t]he principle that the violation of an
individual right gives rise to an actionable harm was widespread at
the founding, in early American history, and in many modern cases."
Invoking an 1813 opinion of Justice Story, Justice Thomas countered
that "'[W]here the law gives an action for a particular act, the
doing of that act imports of itself a damage to the party' because
'[e]very violation of a right imports some damage.'" Whittemore v.
Cutter. The three dissenting Justices indicate they would have
joined Justice Thomas to hold that "injury in law to a private
right was enough to create a case or controversy." Justice Kagan
wrote a short additional dissent, joined by Justice Breyer and
Sotomayor, to emphasize the risk of harm to the class members with
inaccurate credit reports that had not been communicated to third
parties. She also criticized the majority's holding as one that
"transforms standing law from a doctrine of judicial modesty into a
tool of judicial aggrandizement" by denying a specific class of
plaintiffs their right to bring a suit that was directly provided
by Congress, a body that is "better suited than courts to determine
when something causes a harm or risk of harm in the real world."
The Impact
This case parsed critical questions that will shape the future of
class action litigation because, as major technology companies who
submitted amicus briefs argued, privacy and informational rights
lawsuits have proliferated in recent years and tested the bounds of
what may constitute concrete harm. The amici urged the Court to
clarify that a statutory violation or informational injury alone
could not establish standing without a demonstration that concrete,
cognizable harm to the class has already occurred, and the Court
obliged. Data breach lawsuits are often premised on the imminent
risk of identity theft or other potential future or intangible
harm, and thus the Court's decision may well limit the ability of
data breach victims to assert similar claims in federal court.
Plaintiffs will likely respond by reframing their suits as
redressing a concrete harm that has already transpired, describing
intangible harm as related to a traditionally recognized injury, or
seeking injunctive relief to prevent imminent future harm. These
plaintiffs and their counsel may also turn to state law remedies in
state courts as an alternative to grappling with standing
challenges based on the TransUnion ruling in federal court. This
decision may also affect any federal data breach legislation, if
such legislation is enacted and provides a private right of action,
and result in state legislatures and courts continuing to lead in
the development of privacy law in this country, filling the void
left by Congress and the federal courts.
In his closing paragraph of the majority opinion, Justice Kavanaugh
distilled centuries of Article III jurisprudence into five words:
"No concrete harm, no standing." This decision will not end the
growing number of disputes concerning constitutional standing in
the federal courts, but it will stand as an obstacle to those who
would advocate for expanding our understanding of concrete harm,
especially to the substantial risk of imminent future harm. One key
debate that we know will survive this opinion concerns whether
every class member must demonstrate standing before a court
certifies a class, which the majority stated in a footnote it was
not addressing. A second ongoing debate is the question of whether
a punitive damages award may exceed already substantial statutory
damages and actual proven injury by an order of magnitude without
violating due process. TransUnion raised this question in its
certiorari petition, but the Court granted the petition on the
standing issue alone. Thus, both questions survive for another day.
The majority and dissenting opinions reveal the central fault line
in the modern debate over Article III standing. These are sharp
divisions that, given the narrow 5-4 ruling, are far from
resolution and will continue to reverberate in federal courts for
years to come. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in FCRA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that on June 25, 2021,
the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in the case
of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez that a plaintiff must suffer a
"concrete" injury resulting from a defendant's statutory violation
of federal law such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to have
sufficient standing to sue under Article III of the United States
Constitution and that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit must
prove that every class member has standing.
"To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs
must demonstrate, among other things, that they suffered a concrete
harm. No concrete harm, no standing," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
wrote in the majority opinion that reversed and remanded the case
in a narrow 5 to 4 vote. Justice Kavanaugh was joined by Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice
Neil M. Gorsuch, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In the case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, a man named Sergio
Ramirez could not buy a car after TransUnion mistakenly stated on a
credit report that his name was found on the U.S. Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of
suspected terrorists and criminals. Ramirez sued TransUnion on
behalf of 8,185 class members for not following "reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" under the FCRA.
"No concrete harm, no standing. The 1,853 class members whose
credit reports were provided to third-party businesses suffered a
concrete harm and thus have standing as to the
reasonable-procedures claim. The 6,332 class members whose credit
reports were not provided to third-party businesses did not suffer
a concrete harm and thus do not have standing as to the
reasonable-procedures claim," Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the
opinion.
"The mere existence of inaccurate information, absent
dissemination, traditionally has not provided the basis for a
lawsuit in American courts. The plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that
the misleading information in the internal credit files itself
constitutes a concrete harm. The mere presence of an inaccuracy in
an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party,
causes no concrete harm," Justice Kavanaugh concluded in the
opinion.
In March 2021, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the case that
involved alleged FCRA violations to consider whether Article III
permitted damages in class action lawsuits when most of the class
suffered no actual injury or any similar to the class
representative. Some justices suggested the 8,000-member class
action lawsuit "should be significantly narrowed – but not tossed
out entirely," according to an Argument Analysis on
SCOTUSblog.com.
The class action lawsuit against TransUnion has a long history. In
2017, a federal jury in California awarded a record $60 million in
damages after finding that TransUnion violated the FCRA by awarding
each of the 8,185 class members $984.22 in statutory damages and
$6,353.08 in punitive damages. In 2020, an appeals court held that
the punitive damages award was excessive and reduced the award to
$3,936.88 per class member.
In May 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in a related case on whether
consumers must prove a "concrete" injury in class action lawsuits.
The ruling in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins found that
consumers must prove "an injury in fact" in class action lawsuits
for alleged "bare" violations of a federal statute such as the
FCRA. The case involved a man who filed a lawsuit against an online
"people search engine" for alleged FCRA violations.
The FCRA 15 U.S.C Sec. 1681 was enacted by Congress in 1970 to
promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs),
protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their consumer reports, and regulate the
collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information,
including consumer credit information. [GN]
TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, AL: Beasley Balks at Teachers' Unpaid Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE BEASLEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated teachers employed by the Tuscaloosa County School System,
Plaintiff v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM; THE TUSCALOOSA COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION; DR. KERI JOHNSON, in her individual and
official capacity as Superintendent of the Tuscaloosa County School
System; CHARLES ORR; PORTIA JONES; JOE CALVIN; BILL SQUIRES; RANDY
SMALLEY; JAMIE LAKE; and DON PRESLEY, in their individual and
official capacity as members of the Tuscaloosa County Board of
Education; and DANNY HIGDON, in his individual and official
capacity as Chief School Financial Officer of the Tuscaloosa County
School System, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00890-LSC (N.D. Ala.,
June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for denial
of due process under the Alabama Constitution and the Federal
Constitution; breach of contract; mandamus; declaratory, injunctive
and equitable relief; and violations of Students First Act and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case arises from the Defendants' actions to require the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated female certified
teachers employed by the Tuscaloosa County Board of Education to
teach virtual students, after each female teacher has already
taught a full-day of in-school instruction to the on-campus
students, and without provision of any time during the workweek and
workday to prepare for and teach these additional virtual classes,
without any compensation for the significant additional amount of
work they are being required to perform, and without any additional
time, credit or contribution for this work being provided to the
Teachers Retirement System of Alabama (TRSA).
Tuscaloosa County School System (TCSS) is a public education system
in the State of Alabama that is governed by the Tuscaloosa County
Board of Education.
Tuscaloosa County Board of Education is a governmental entity that
superintends elementary and secondary education in Tuscaloosa
County Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruth B. McFarland, Esq.
Bryan P. Winter, Esq.
WINTER MCFARLAND, LLC
205 McFarland Circle North
Tuscaloosa, AL 35406
Telephone: (205) 650-1400
Facsimile: (205) 650-1401
E-mail: ruth@winmclaw.com
bwinter@winmclaw.com
- and –
Heather Leonard, Esq.
HEATHER LEONARD PC
2105 Devereux Circle
Vestavia Hills, AL 35243
Telephone: (205) 977-5421
E-mail: Heather@heatherleonardpc.com
- and –
Brannon Buck, Esq.
BADHAM AND BUCK, LLC
200I Park Place North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 521-0036
E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com
TUTOR PERINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gamez Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO GAMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION; TUTOR PERINI
CORPORATION CIVIL WEST; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21-592485 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 23, 2021)
is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as cement finisher.
TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION and its subsidiaries provide general
contracting, construction management and design-build services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Kevin Joseph Farnan, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
kfarnan@lelawfirm.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Driver's Agreement Bars Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh and Cherry Hill at Courier-Post report that an Uber
driver's lawsuit against the ride-sharing service has hit a
roadblock in federal court here.
Edward Siperavage filed the suit after he bought a $71,000 vehicle
to participate in the Uber Black SUV program, then was told months
later his Chevrolet Tahoe would no longer qualify for the upscale
service.
The Cherry Hill man's proposed class action suit sought to
represent all Uber drivers in New Jersey with similar complaint.
But a federal judge agreed with Uber that the dispute should be
resolved through private arbitration, rather than in court.
A federal judge has said a Cherry Hill man, who sought to bring a
class action suit against Uber, must resolve his dispute through
arbitration.
U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman also found Siperavage had given up
his right to pursue a class-action claim against Uber.
That "clear and conspicuous waiver" occurred when Siperavage signed
Uber's Platform Access Agreement in January 2020, Hillman said. The
driver sued nine months later.
An attorney for Siperavage, John Soumilas of Philadelphia, called
the ruling "yet another case where the courthouse doors are closed
to aggrieved individuals because of forced arbitration."
Soumilas said the arbitration process provides no public hearing
for "the facts and circumstances that cause harm to Uber drivers."
"And where the same harm affects a large number of individuals in
whatever industry, justice for all those affected has become
impossible due to forced arbitration," the lawyer said.
An attorney for Uber did not respond to requests for comment.
According to the suit, Siperavage joined Uber in 2015, driving a
Cadillac CTS in the Uber Black program.
He bought the Tahoe in December 2018 to boost his income through
Uber Black SUV, described by the ride-sharing firm as offering
"premium rides . . . . in luxury SUVs."
The suit says Siperavage twice confirmed the Tahoe's eligibility
before the purchase — in an exchange of messages with an Uber
representative and by checking the firm's website.
But Uber announced in August 2019 that the Tahoe was among several
models being cut from its high-end program. Siperavage, who had
expected the Tahoe to remain eligible until 2024, saw his earnings
fall by more than $200 per month, his lawsuit said.
In arguing for the lawsuit, Soumilas said forced arbitration would
be "unconscionable" under New Jersey law. He noted the arbitration
provision would require Siperavage to pay "significant" fees and
would bar a class action claim.
But Hillman said the law required an arbitrator, and not a judge,
to hear Siperavage's challenge to the arbitration process.
Among other points, the judge also noted New Jersey law "has
declined to impose any per se rule against" class action waivers.
[GN]
UBIQUITI INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 28, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-pton/
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)
Class Period: 1/11/2021 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ui/
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)
Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the January 2021
initial public stock offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 9, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rlx/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS: Zuniga FLSA Suit Removed to D. Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE ISMAEL ZUNIGA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS INC.,
UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS OF IDAHO LLC, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. A-21-835257-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial
District Court in Clark County, Nevada to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada on June 29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-01221 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Unforgettable Coatings Inc. is a manufacturer of coatings, with its
principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Unforgettable Coatings of Idaho LLC is a manufacturer of coatings,
with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul T. Trimmer, Esq.
Lynne K. McChrystal, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 900
Las Vegas, NV 89101
UNIFIN INC: McBride Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Monique McBride, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson Capital
Systems LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00980-UNA (D. Del.,
July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
UNIFIN, Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a debt collector
attempting to collect a debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig N. Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22
Wilmington, DE 19805
Phone: (215) 326-9179
Email: ag@garibianlaw.com
UNITED DEBT: Benitez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Debt
Settlement, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mariano Benitez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Debt Settlement, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, Case No. 3:21-cv-01204-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 1, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
United Debt Settlement -- https://unitedsettlement.com/ -- consists
of hard-working people on a mission to help others face their
debt.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
USAA CASUALTY: Class Certification Filing Deadline Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAHAZEL BLACK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01363-LMM (N.D.
Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order that the
deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class
certification shall be extended to a later date to be set by the
Court upon consideration of the parties Joint Preliminary Report
and Discovery Plan.
USAA is an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hgZa0T at no extra charge.[CC]
UZID LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UZID LLC. The case is
styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. UZID LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03732
(E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Uzid -- https://uzid.com/ -- offers one of the largest selection of
cell phone accessories online.[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
VERMONT HOTEL: Ex Plaintiff Calls Suit a Necessary 1st Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hoey at mychamplainvalley.com reports that there's new
information concerning Vermont Legal Aid's class-action lawsuit
against the state of Vermont, even though the suit is currently on
pause. The suit has to do with a June decision by Gov. Phil Scott's
administration to tighten the eligibility requirements homeless
Vermonters must meet for emergency housing in hotels and motels.
"I think (the class-action suit) is a necessary first recognition
that there have been some areas where policy and process and legal
process has not been followed," Tina Gray-Rand said.
She was due to lose her emergency housing at the beginning of the
month until judicial order put a stop to that. Tina is staying in
the Pierre Motel in downtown Barre.
"I'm not able to work full-time right now," she said. "After coming
into the hotel process, PTSD was triggered. There's been -- it's a
lot of stress, on top of rebuilding your own life."
Tina, and about 700 other Vermonters with disabilities in hotel
housing, need the state to officially verify their disability. If
it happens, their stay is extended for 12 more weeks.
Tina got that to happen. Her stay at the Pierre Motel has been
extended through at least September 23. However, it also means
she's no longer a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit. Her name
was on the court filings.
"The old criteria of housing -- I think it's probably outdated and
archaic," Tina said. "This could be a good time, actually, to look
at what really might work."
In late June, Vermont lawmakers passed a bill setting up a stronger
enforcement system for rental property safety. That system would
have included creating a statewide rental unit registry.
Gov. Phil Scott vetoed that measure, writing in part:
"Most agree we suffer from a critical housing shortage for middle
income, low income and homeless Vermonters, but the solution is not
more regulation. Instead, we need to invest in new and
rehabilitated housing in every corner of our state."
Tina says she supports the governor and knows full well that his
administration has had to act quickly and decisively during the
pandemic. Even so, she remains concerned about the state's
direction.
"I don't think it says well of our society to say that we were
going to address the homelessness and then to be putting people out
and creating tent cities like we are," she said.
Local 22 & Local 44 News has also reached out to the Vermont Agency
of Human Services -- the defendant in the class-action lawsuit --
for comment. As of this writing, agency officials had not replied.
[GN]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic")
(NYSE: SPCE) between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17230&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. NEWS - SPCE NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) for accounting
purposes, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH")
warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than
equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls
and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii)
as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that
were outstanding at the time of the business combination; and (iv)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Virgin
Galactic, you have until July 27, 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.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Virgin Galactic securities between
October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17230&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
VIRGINIA: Makes Progress, But Thousands Still Waiting on Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wtvr.com reports that new details regarding the class-action
lawsuit filed in May 2021 against the Virginia Employment
Commission (VEC) showed that while the agency has made significant
progress paying those who have spent months waiting for benefits,
there are still tens of thousands of Virginians waiting.
A new status report filed by Legal Aid groups and its pro bono
partners showed since May, the VEC has shrunk the backlog of around
90,000 people waiting on benefits to 40,000.
However, the groups estimated over the past two months, around
30,000 new claims have been added to the backlog.
This means the agency has only cleared up around 20,000 claims.
"A lot of folks are still out there waiting, wondering what's going
on and needing emergency aid," Pat Levy-Lavelle, an attorney
representing five of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit,
said.
The report also noted the VEC identified 4,189 claimants that had
been waiting to receive benefits since March through June 2020.
While the agency just released payments to those individuals at the
end of last month, Levy-Lavelle said this does not take back the
damage caused as these Virginians waited more than a year without
relief.
Legal Aid identified two other problematic areas where it appeared
benefits were illegally cut off by the VEC:
Cases where claimants were asked to provide proof of employment
Cases where claimants were asked to complete a proof of identity
process
The proof of identity process was launched at the end of May
through a website called ID.me.
Some Virginians, like Charles Stallings, of Chesterfield, reported
their benefits were stopped before receiving a link to upload
documents to ID.me.
"It's just not right," Stallings said.
He said his benefits were cut off in May for no reason. The
following week, he said he received an email that asked him to
reapply for benefits and upload his identification to ID.me.
"I uploaded the documents, and then something on the screen came on
to say that we will get back with you via email or phone within the
next week," said Stallings. "Nobody has contacted me."
After scheduling two phone appointments with the VEC and contacting
ID.me, Stallings said he still can't get answers.
"If you adhere to their protocol and do everything that they've
asked you to do, what more is there to say?" he asked. "You're at
the mercy of VEC."
Legal Aid groups believe the VEC needs to speed up the payment
process for backlogged claims.
"It seems in a lot of cases, the VEC is cutting people off and
asking questions later," Levy-Lavelle said. "We think federal
guidance is fairly clear that if people are getting benefits,
they're supposed to keep getting them until there's due process."
The VEC has previously noted it was ramping up staff, so it could
hit the judge's requirement of 20,000 claims processed a week by
August.
"I know that they have said that they want to hit that 20,000
figure, the order requires it," said Levy-Lavelle. "I certainly
hope and anticipate that they will."
If the VEC were to miss the mark and fall short of 20,000 claims a
week in August, Levy-Lavelle said they would inform the judge.
When asked to update its staffing and processing of claims, a
spokesperson for the VEC replied via email.
"I have no comment," the email read. [GN]
W. R. GRACE & CO: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Finger Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN FINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W. R. GRACE & CO.; HUDSON LA FORCE; MARK E.
TOMKINS; ROBERT F. CUMMINGS, JR.; DIANE H. GULYAS; HENRY R. SLACK;
JULIE FASONE HOLDER; CHRISTOPHER J. STEFFEN; and SHLOMO YANAI,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01055 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants alleging violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), seeking to enjoin the
vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which W. R. Grace & Co.
("Grace" or the "Company") will be acquired by Standard Industries
Holdings Inc. ("Standard") through Gibraltar Acquisition Holdings
LLC ("Parent"), and Gibraltar Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the
"Proposed Transaction").
According to the complaint, on June 21, 2021, Grace filed a
Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement")
with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Grace
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) the financial projections for Grace; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial advisors,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman") and Moelis & Company LLC
("Moelis"); and (iii) Goldman's potential conflicts of interest.
Allegedly, the Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and
misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.
Unless remedied, Grace's public stockholders will be irreparably
harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations
and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed
voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction.
W.R. Grace & Co. supplies specialty chemical, construction, and
container products. The Company focus on catalysts and silica,
construction, fine chemical, and molecular sieves, and other
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid for Summary Judgment in WCERS Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the motion for
summary judgment filed in Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement
System v. Walgreen Co. et al., No. 1:15-cv-3187, is pending.
On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
(Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et
al., No. 1:15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.)).
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. A motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action complaint filed on August 17, 2015 was
granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2016.
The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
March 29, 2018 and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on
December 19, 2018.
A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted in part
and denied in part on September 23, 2019. Fact discovery and expert
discovery have concluded.
Motions for summary judgment have been fully briefed.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Shareholders Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by purported Rite Aid
shareholders.
On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an
amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania arising out
of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the
Company and Rite Aid.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its
officers made false or misleading statements regarding the
transactions. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on April 15, 2019.
The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery
commenced, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
In October and December 2020, two separate purported Rite Aid
Shareholders filed lawsuits in the same court as the M.D. Pa.
action opting out of the class in the M.D. Pa. action making nearly
identical allegations as those in the M.D. Pa. action (the "Direct
Actions").
On December 24, 2020, the parties to the Direct Actions filed a
joint stipulation to stay the Direct Actions until the earlier of
(a) 30 days after the entry of an order resolving any pre-trial
dispositive motions in the M.D. Pa. action, or (b) 30 days after
the entry of an order of final approval of any settlement of the
M.D. Pa. action.
The court so ordered the joint stipulation on December 28, 2020.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health
and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail
Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical
Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and
is based in Deerfield, Illinois.
*********
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 ***