/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210811.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, August 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 154
Headlines
12291 CBW: Rogers FLSA Suit Seeks Class Certification
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Pending
360 DIGITECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 13 Deadline
3M COMPANY: Homeowners File Suit Over Harmful Chemical Compounds
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Kaskela Law Discloses Securities Class Action
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Thornton Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
ADAPTHEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Opportunity
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Seeks OK of Settlement Reached in Martin Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Antitrust Class Suits Over Price Inflation, Pile Up
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert. Filing Extended to April 11, 2022
AQUA METALS: Settlement Reached in California Securities Class Suit
ARDELYX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 28 Deadline
AT&T MOBILITY: Filing Deadline of Settlement Claims Set on Aug. 13
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin Sept. 13
CHARLOTTE, NC: Faces Protesters' Suit Over Police Officers' Actions
COINBASE GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COINBASE GLOBAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
CONCHO RESOURCES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
CORECIVIC INC: Bid to Stay Owino Proceedings Partly Granted
CORMEDIX INC: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Action
DIDI GLOBAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
ECHO GLOBAL: Labor Related Class Action Underway
EXAMSOFT: May Face Suit Over Technical Problems During Bar Exam
FACEBOOK INC: Appeal on the Settlement of BIPA-Related Suit Nixed
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Cyber-Attack Suit Granted Final OK
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway
FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Residents File Water Contamination Class Action
FRESNO, CA: Class Action Over Tainted Drinking Water Certified
FULL TRUCK: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
GCI LIBERTY: October 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
GOOGLE LLC: Google+ Users Receive Settlement Over Data Leak Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Maria Schneider Seeks Class Expansion in Copyright Suit
GRUBHUB INC: Seeks to Arbitrate Delivery Fee Cap Class Action
HOME POINT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 20 Deadline
HYCROFT GOLD: Kim Spencer Discloses Securities Class Action Suit
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Hit With Class-Action Over $23M Ponzi Scheme
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bid to DIsmiss Rice Class Suit Pending
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Liu and Fu Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
INTERSECT ENT: October 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ITALY: Impact of Class Action Reform on Financial Firms, Discussed
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
JAMES HARDIE: Leaky Home Class Action Settled Mid-Trial
JANUS HENDERSON: Voluntarily Dismissed from VelocityShares Suit
JIMMY JOHN'S: Workers' Class Action Bid Denied, No-Poaching Agreed
KANZHUN LTD: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
KBR INC: Enforcement of $19MM Award to Former Employees Suspended
KCI USA: Seeks Denial of Palmer Class Certification Bid
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement in Indirect Purchasers Suit Approved
LOUISIANA: Settlement in Perry Suit Gets Initial OK
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Notice of Failure to File Class Cert. Stricken
LUCKIN COFFEE: Bernstein Litowitz Discloses Securities Class Action
MACROGENICS INC: Hill Securities Class Suit Underway
MASTERCARD INC: Class Status Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending
MASTERCARD INC: Oral Argument on Settlement Appeal Set for October
MASTERCARD INC: Parties Directed to Re-brief Class Cert. Bid
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Underway
MAYNE PHARMA: Faces Investor Lawsuit Over Anticompetitive Conduct
MCDONALD'S USA: Bids to Certify Class in Deslandes Suit Denied
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Class Certification of Brown Suit
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Class Certification of Cleven Suit
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Turnage Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Pending
NORTHLAND INSURANCE: MSPRC Wins Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
OATLY GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 24 Deadline
OATLY GROUP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of September 24 Deadline
ONTARIO: Makes Legal Bid to Settle Class Action Over Alleged Abuse
PBF ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Goldstein Suit Pending
PLAID INC: Settles Unfair Business Practices Class Action for $58M
POSTAL FLEET: Federman & Sherwood Discloses Class Action
POSTMATES LLC: Files U.S. Supreme Court Petition in PAGA Suit
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Appeals Ruling in Favor of Principal Life
RAVI ZACHARIAS: Misled Donors, Class Action Lawsuit Claims
RECKITT BENCKISER: Settles Class Action Over False Advertising
RENOVACARE INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 14 Deadline
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
ROHR INC: Bid for Class Certification Continued to August 13
RYDER SYSTEM: Decision on Bid to Nix Key West Policy Suit Reserved
SHAMROCK SALOON: Settlement in George Suit Gets Initial Nod
T ROWE PRICE: Settlement Reached in 401(k) Plan Related Suit
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Settlement in Prause Suit Gets Final Nod
TESLA INC: Settles Model S Owners' Class Action for $1.5 Million
TS TECH: Court Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Cruz Class Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Tosses Race Discrimination Class Action
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending
VISA INC: Faces Foreign Currency Related Suit
VISA INC: Faces Lanning and Camp Grounds Coffee Suits
WELLS FARGO: Commercial Lending Shareholders' Suits Underway
WESTERN HEALTH: Junior Doctors Join Underpayment Class Action
WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
WORLD WRESTLING: Settlement in Kansas FPS Suit Gets Final Nod
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix BolaWrap Related Suit Pending
ZIMMER BIOMET: Settles Employee Class Action Lawsuit for $7.3M
ZYMERGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 3 Deadline
ZYMERGEN INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of October 4 Deadline
[*] Class Action Says Drugmakers Colluded to Restrict Insulin Sales
[*] New Securities Class Actions Filings Down 25% in 1Half of 2021
*********
12291 CBW: Rogers FLSA Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GABRIELLE ROGERS AND
ASHLEY WILBURN, on Behalf of Themselves and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. 12291 CBW, LLC, RCI DINING SERVICES
(BEAUMONT), INC., and RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-00266-MJT (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
grant their motion for certification because they have demonstrated
that the Class Members form a homogenous group of workers who are
similarly situated for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) purposes in
every material respect.
The Defendant RCI is a publicly-traded company that owns and
operates a variety of businesses in the adult entertainment
industry, including adult entertainment nightclubs. RCI operates
its adult entertainment nightclubs through several brands that it
claims "target many different demographics of customers by
providing a unique, quality entertainment environment." Temptations
is one such brand. Temptations operates a Forth Worth location and
a Beaumont location.
According to the complaint, Temptations could not provide its
services to customers. However, the dancers at Temptations are
universally misclassified by Defendants as independent contractors
and not as employees. As a result of being labeled as independent
contractors, the dancers (1) are not paid wages, (2) are required
to pay Defendants’ "House Fees," and (3) are required to give
portions of their tips to employees of Defendants who work in
positions that normally do not receive tips.
The Defendants' illegal misclassification policy has existed for
years. Despite the law in the Fifth Circuit being settled for
approximately 30 years that dancers are employees, Defendants have
simply refused to comply with the law. This lawsuit is designed to
remedy Defendants' illegal conduct, says the complaint.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 28,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jo8qjw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
2U INC: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
2U, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated
putative class action suit remains pending before the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
On August 7 and 9, 2019, Aaron Harper and Anne M. Chinn filed
putative class action complaints against the Company, Christopher
J. Paucek, the Company's CEO, and Catherine A. Graham, the
Company's former CFO, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based upon allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
projections.
The district court transferred the cases to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, consolidated them
under docket number 8:19-cv-3455 (D. Md.), and appointed Fiyyaz
Pirani as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.
On July 30, 2020, Mr. Pirani filed a consolidated class action
complaint, adding Harsha Mokkarala, the Company's former Chief
Marketing Officer, as a defendant. The CAC also asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, against Mr. Paucek, Ms. Graham, members of the
Company's board of directors, and the Company's underwriters, based
on allegations related to the Company's secondary stock offering on
May 23, 2018.
The proposed class consists of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities between February 26, 2018 and July 30, 2019.
On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
December 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief and
on February 9, 2021 the defendants filed a reply brief.
2U said, "The Company believes that the claims are without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims. However,
due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved,
the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable."
Headquartered in Landover, Maryland, 2U, Inc. provides cloud-based
SaaS solutions that address the needs of nonprofit colleges and
universities to attract, enroll and deliver quality education to
students. The 2U platform enables clients to offer full
undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs online.
360 DIGITECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 13 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of 360 DigiTech, Inc. ("360 DigiTech") (NASDAQ: QFIN)
between April 29, 2021 and July 7, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18171&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.
360 DigiTech, Inc. NEWS - QFIN NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the Company had
been collecting personal information in violation of relevant
People's Republic of China laws and regulations; (ii) accordingly,
360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of regulatory
scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) 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 360
DigiTech, you have until September 13, 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 360 DigiTech securities between
April 29, 2021 and July 7, 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-1/360-digitech-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18171&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]
3M COMPANY: Homeowners File Suit Over Harmful Chemical Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------
48 Town of Campbell homeowners have filed a class action lawsuit
against dozens chemical companies and distributors of fire fighting
foam.
According to the suit, filed in La Crosse County, the
manufacturers, including 3M, Dupont, and Tyco, knew the PFAS
chemical compounds they used to make their firefighting foam would
contaminate the ground water, and that PFAS can cause serious
health conditions including cancer. "They have also known for
decades that they cause significant adverse health effects and
could foresee that they would cause a profound risk to public
health in communities such as La Crosse. Yet they elected to
manufacturer and sell products utilizing these chemicals without
warning their customers, placing profits over public health and
safety," says Attorney James Koby.
PFAS was used to make the foam sprayed at the La Crosse Regional
Airport for decades. According to the Wisconsin DNR, which tested
private and public wells throughout the Town of Campbell, more than
500 are contaminated with PFAS. In some cases, the PFAS levels are
so high, the water in unsafe to drink, cook with, or use to brush
your teeth.
In March, the City of La Crosse filed suit against the same
companies. An attorney for the city says the companies knew their
products posed risks to public health. [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Activision Blizzard, Inc.
("Activision Blizzard" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATVI) and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Activision Blizzard securities between August 4,
2016 and July 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/atvi.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Activision Blizzard discriminated against women and
minority employees; (2) Activision Blizzard fostered a pervasive
"frat boy" workplace culture that continues to thrive; (3) numerous
complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation were made to human resources personnel and executives
which went unaddressed; (4) the pervasive culture of harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation would result in serious impairments
to Activision Blizzard's operations; (5) as a result as a result of
the foregoing, the Company was at greater risk of regulatory and
legal scrutiny and enforcement, including that which would have a
material adverse effect; (6) Activision Blizzard failed to inform
shareholders that the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing had been investigating Activision Blizzard for harassment
and discrimination; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements
about Activision Blizzard's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/atvi or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Activision Blizzard you have until October 4, 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
Activision Blizzard, Inc. (ATVI)
Class Period: 8/4/2016 - 7/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 4, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-atvi/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Kaskela Law Discloses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Activision Blizzard, Inc. ("Activision" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATVI) on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between August 4, 2016 and
July 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
On July 20, 2021, California's Department of Fair Employment and
Housing filed a lawsuit against Activision alleging that female
employees had been subjected to "constant sexual harassment," while
Activision's top executives and human resources personnel not only
knew about the harassment and failed to prevent it, but also
retaliated against employees who complained. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Equal Pay Act and the Fair Employment and Housing
Act.
Following this news, shares of Activision's common stock sharply
declined in value, causing damage to the Company's investors.
Activision investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/activision-blizzard-inc/, for
additional information about this action and their legal rights and
options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Thornton Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors who purchased Activision
Blizzard securities (NASDAQ: ATVI) between August 4, 2016 and July
27, 2021 may seek to participate in the case as a Lead Plaintiff.
Interested investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Activision for
more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917. A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf
of investors of ATVI. Investors do not need to be the Lead
Plaintiff to recover as class members if the case is successful.
The case alleges that Activision Blizzard and its senior executives
made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose
that: (i) Activision discriminated against women and minority
employees; (ii) Activision fostered a pervasive "frat boy"
workplace culture that continues to thrive; (iii) numerous
complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation were made to human resources personnel and executives
which went unaddressed; (iv) the pervasive culture of harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation would result in serious impairments
to Activision's operations; (v) as a result, Activision was at
greater risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement,
including that which would have a material adverse effect; and (vi)
Activision failed to inform shareholders that the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing had been investigating
Activision for harassment and discrimination.
Interested Activision Blizzard investors have until October 4, 2021
to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of AdaptHealth Corp. from November 11, 2019 through
July 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleges violations of the Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased AdaptHealth securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit AdaptHealth
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic growth
trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth numbers
without disclosing the changes, in violation of SEC regulations;
(ii) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its
financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On July 19, 2021, before market hours, Jehoshaphat Research
published a report alleging that AdaptHealth is a "roll-up"
company, or a company that is built primarily through the
acquisition of smaller companies with common services or products,
that obscures its organic growth by "[r]etroactively changing past
organic growth numbers to be higher, with no disclosure about the
change." The report also suggested that AdaptHealth's manipulation
of its organic growth trajectory was "a blatant violation of
non-GAAP disclosure rules, for which companies get into huge
trouble."
On this news, AdaptHealth's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
5.93%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased AdaptHealth securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/adapthealthcorp-ahco-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-389/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]
ADAPTHEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Opportunity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 2 disclosed that the
AdaptHealth class action lawsuit charges AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a
DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: AHCO; AHCOW) and certain
of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers of AdaptHealth
securities between November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021, inclusive
("Class Period"). The AdaptHealth class action lawsuit was
commenced on July 29, 2021 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and is captioned Faille v. AdaptHealth Corp. f/k/a DFB Healthcare
Acquisitions Corp., No. 21-cv-03382.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the AdaptHealth class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Prior to its business combination with
AdaptHealth, as described below, DFB was a special purpose
acquisition company (or "SPAC"), also known as a blank check
company. On July 8, 2019, DFB announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement for a business combination with AdaptHealth,
the third largest distributor of home medical equipment in the U.S.
Upon the closing of the merger, DFB renamed itself "AdaptHealth
Corp."
The AdaptHealth class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its
organic growth trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic
growth numbers without disclosing the changes, in violation of U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") regulations; (ii)
accordingly, AdaptHealth had materially overstated its financial
prospects; and (iii) as a result, AdaptHealth's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 19, 2021, Jehoshaphat Research published a report alleging
that AdaptHealth is a "roll-up" company, or a company that is built
primarily through the acquisition of smaller companies with common
services or products, that obscures its organic growth by
"[r]etroactively changing past organic growth numbers to be higher,
with no disclosure about the change." Specifically, the report
stated that "[w]hile management claims (and consensus estimates
reflect) an organic growth trajectory of 8-10%, AHCO is in fact
experiencing double-digit organic decline. It is also, in our
opinion, taking steps to obscure that decline which are expressly
forbidden by the SEC." The report suggested that AdaptHealth's
manipulation of its organic growth trajectory was "a blatant
violation of non-GAAP disclosure rules, for which companies get
into huge trouble." On this news, AdaptHealth's stock price fell
nearly 6%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased AdaptHealth
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the AdaptHealth 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 AdaptHealth class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the AdaptHealth class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
AdaptHealth 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
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for 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
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Seeks OK of Settlement Reached in Martin Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Albertsons Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the class
action case styled, Martin v. Safeway, will seek court approval of
the settlement reached.
On May 31, 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Martin
v. Safeway was filed in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda, alleging the Company failed to comply with the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") by printing
receipts that failed to adequately mask payment card numbers as
required by FACTA.
The plaintiff claims the violation was "willful" and exposes the
Company to statutory damages provided for in FACTA.
The Company has answered the complaint and is vigorously defending
the matter.
On January 8, 2020, the Company commenced mediation discussions
with plaintiff's counsel and reached a settlement in principle on
February 24, 2020.
The parties will seek court approval of the settlement.
The Company has recorded an estimated liability for this matter.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a
food and drug retailer in the United States. Its food and drug
retail stores offer grocery products, general merchandise, health
and beauty care products, pharmacy, fuel, and other items and
services. The company is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Albertsons
Companies, Inc. is a subsidiary of Albertsons Investor Holdings
LLC.
AMAZON.COM INC: Antitrust Class Suits Over Price Inflation, Pile Up
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Anne Long, writing for Seattle Times, reports that an
explosion of class-action antitrust suits against Amazon seem to be
taking cues from the Biden administration and state regulators'
newly aggressive stance on competition.
Amazon saw the filing of two more such suits, claiming the
Seattle-based e-commerce giant's policies drive up prices. Those
cases bring the number of antitrust actions lodged against Amazon
since last March to at least 16. Amazon was sued only twice on
federal antitrust grounds between 2010 and 2020, according to a
review of cases on CourtListener.
Those recent, private antitrust actions have largely mirrored
stepped-up scrutiny of Amazon by federal- and state-level lawmakers
and regulatory agencies.
The two new putative class-action suits, both filed in federal
court in Seattle by law group Terrell Marshall, allege that Amazon
inflates prices by nudging customers to buy merchandise from
sellers who pay Amazon for logistics services, even if the same
product is offered at a lower price from a seller who doesn't rely
on Amazon for shipping.
"Amazon's unlawful use of its monopoly-level power has given it an
edge in the logistics market, forced sellers to pay
supra-competitive prices for fulfillment services, and increased
prices for plaintiff and other consumers who shop on Amazon.com,"
contend the suits.
Amazon did not respond to questions about the new lawsuits.
Four other cases, the first filed in March, allege that Amazon's
policies have the effect of raising customers' bills at sites
across the online retail industry. Amazon requires vendors to sell
their products on Amazon at lower prices than they offer anywhere
else. But the cost of an item on Amazon is driven up by the cost of
other services the company offers, like shipping and advertising.
Sellers who choose not to pay for those Amazon-provided extras
often have difficulty making sales on the platform, the suits say.
Those claims echo a recent presidential directive instructing
federal regulators to rule that it's unfair for Amazon to compete
with sellers on an e-commerce platform it controls. Federal
lawmakers earlier this year proposed legislation with a similar
intent. The District of Columbia also targeted Amazon's Marketplace
platform in a May antitrust suit.
Ten more class-action antitrust claims filed since the start of the
year focus on Amazon's bookselling division. Those suits,
spearheaded by Seattle class-action firm Hagens Berman, allege that
Amazon colluded with big publishers to drive up prices for print
and e-books, at the expense of small retailers and consumers.
Connecticut's attorney general is also examining Amazon's
relationship with e-book publishers. [GN]
AMERICAN HONDA: Class Cert. Filing Extended to April 11, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONY WOO, et al., v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., Case No. 3:19-cv-07042-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to
modify scheduling order as follows:
1. The discovery cutoff is extended to November 23, 2021.
2. The deadline to disclose experts is extended to December
27, 2021.
3. The deadline to disclose rebuttal experts is extended to
January 24, 2022.
4. The deadline to complete expert discovery is March 8,
2022.
5. The deadline to file plaintiffs' Class Certification
Motion is extended to April 11, 2022.
6. The deadline to file opposition to the Class Certification
Motion is extended to May 23, 2022.
7. The deadline to file a reply to the opposition to the
Class Certification Motion is extended to June 27, 2022.
8. The hearing on the Class Certification Motion is continued
to Friday, July 22, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.
9. the Further Case Management Conference is continued to
September 30, 2022, at 10:30 a.m.
10. a Joint Further Case Management Statement shall be filed
no later than September 23, 2022.
The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North American
subsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in
1959.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Xe0N7T at no extra charge.[CC]
AQUA METALS: Settlement Reached in California Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in In Re:
Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142,
entered into a stipulation for settlement of all claims based on
the payment of a cash amount to the plaintiffs to be funded by Aqua
Metals' insurance carriers, plus $500,000 to be paid to the
plaintiffs by Aqua Metals in cash or common shares, at Aqua Metals'
option.
Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District California against the company and certain of its
former executive officers.
On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-07142.
The complaint, as amended, alleged the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning our lead recycling operations and
conducted deceptive site visits in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks to hold the individual defendants as control
persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading
statements concerning the company's lead recycling operations
contained in or incorporated by reference in, the company's
Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection with the
company's November 2016 public offering.
In July 2021, the parties entered into a stipulation for settlement
of all claims based on the payment of a cash amount to the
plaintiffs to be funded by Aqua Metals' insurance carriers, plus
$500,000 to be paid to the plaintiffs by Aqua Metals in cash or
common shares, at Aqua Metals' option.
The stipulation for settlement is subject to the approval of the
Court.
Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.
ARDELYX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 2 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Ardelyx Inc. ("Ardelyx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ARDX) from August 6, 2020 through July 19, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Ardelyx securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Ardelyx Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877)
779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
In June 2020, Ardelyx submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to
the FDA for its lead product candidate, tenapanor, a supposedly
first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in
adult patients with chronic kidney disease on dialysis. The FDA
accepted the NDA in September 2020 ad set a Prescription Drug User
Fee Act date for April 29, 2021.
Ardelyx repeatedly lauded this regulatory development, highlighting
the FDA's acceptance of the NDA, supported by so-called
"successful" Phase 3 studies, in each subsequently filed quarterly
report and in the Company's 2020 Annual Report. However, the
Ardelyx complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by
the FDA.
On July 19, 2021, after the market closet, Ardelyx revealed it had
received a letter from the FDA stating that it had detected issues
with both the size and clinical relevance of the drug's treatment
effect which would preclude any further regulatory progress
regarding tenapanor at that time.
On this news, the price of Ardelyx shares fell $5.69 per share, or
73.9%, to close at $2.01 per share on July 20, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Ardelyx securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ardelyx-ardx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-423/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information
Rujul Patel
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
rpatel@bernlieb.com [GN]
ARDELYX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ardelyx class action lawsuit charges Ardelyx Inc. and certain
of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers of Ardelyx securities
between August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive ("Class
Period"). The Ardelyx class action lawsuit was commenced on July
30, 2021 in the Northern District of California and is captioned
Strezsak v. Ardelyx Inc., No. 21-cv-05868.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ardelyx class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Ardelyx class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than September 28, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: In June 2020, Ardelyx submitted a New Drug
Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") for Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, a
supposedly first-in-class medicine for the control of serum
phosphorus in adult patients with chronic kidney disease on
dialysis. The FDA accepted Ardelyx's NDA in September 2020 and set
a Prescription Drug User Fee Act date of April 29, 2021.
The Ardelyx class action lawsuit alleges that Ardelyx repeatedly
lauded this development, highlighting the FDA's acceptance and
review of the NDA, supported by so-called "successful" Phase 3
studies, in each subsequently filed quarterly report and in the
Company's 2020 Annual Report. However, the Ardelyx class action
lawsuit further alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by
the FDA. Specifically, the Ardelyx class action lawsuit alleges
that defendants possessed, were in control over, and, as a result,
knew (or had reason to know) that the data submitted to support the
NDA was insufficient in that it showed a lack of clinical relevance
of the drug's treatment effect, making it foreseeably likely (if
not certain) that the FDA would not approve the drug.
On July 19, 2021, Ardelyx announced that it had received a letter
from the FDA, dated July 13, 2021, that said the FDA had found
deficiencies that precluded discussion around the would-be labeling
and post-marketing requirements for tenapanor. The FDA revealed
that it detected issues with both the size and clinical relevance
of the drug's treatment effect. On this news, Ardelyx's stock price
fell nearly 74%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ardelyx
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Ardelyx 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 Ardelyx class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Ardelyx class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Ardelyx class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
About Robbins Geller
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 https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more
information. [GN]
AT&T MOBILITY: Filing Deadline of Settlement Claims Set on Aug. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Soga, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that need a
little extra cash this month? There's still time to file a claim in
several class action settlements -- some without proof of purchase
needed.
Read on to find out which ones you qualify for.
Hyundai Theta Engine Settlement
Consumers who experienced problems with their Hyundai's Theta
engine may be able to benefit from a recent class action
settlement.
The Class includes individuals who bought or leased any of the
following vehicles: 2011-2018 and certain 2019 Hyundai Sonata,
2013–2018 and certain 2019 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport, and
2014–2015, 2018, and certain 2019 Hyundai Tucson vehicles
equipped with or replaced with a genuine Theta II 2.0-liter or
2.4-liter gasoline direct injection engine within OEM
specifications.
The noted 2019 vehicles are eligible if they were manufactured
before the Knock Sensor Detection System technology was
incorporated into production.
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit claimed some Hyundai vehicles
are defective and prone to engine problems, including seizing,
stalling, engine failure and engine fire.
Several types of relief are available, including reimbursement for
repairs and items such as rental cars; compensation for reduced
trade-in value and engine fires; and rebates on the purchase of a
replacement vehicle, among other things.
Claims are due by Aug. 10, 2021.
Dollar General DG Auto Motor Oil $28.5M Class Action Settlement
Consumers who purchased certain DG Auto motor oils between Sept. 1,
2010, and Dec. 31, 2017, may be eligible to file claims for
property damage thanks to a $28.5 million settlement.
The Class is made up of anyone living in the U.S. who purchased any
of the following DG Auto motor oils for personal use, not for
resale, between Sept. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2017:
DG SAE 10W-30 (SF specification) for use in vehicles manufactured
after 1988
DG SAE 10W-40 (SF specification) for use in vehicles manufactured
after 1988
DG SAE 30 (SA specification) for use in vehicles manufactured after
1930
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit had alleged the defendants
deceptively marketed and sold oils that were obsolete and had the
potential to harm vehicles.
Payments for property damage claims are expected to be up to
$2,250, depending on the vehicle's mileage and model year.
Claims for property damage benefits must be filed by Aug. 23,
2021.
Kia Engine Failure Class Action Settlement
Hyundai has agreed to resolve Kia engine failure class action
claims in a settlement deal benefiting Kia owners whose vehicles
are allegedly equipped with defective engines.
Owners and lessees of Class vehicles originally equipped with or
fitted with a replacement genuine Theta II 2.0-liter or 2.4-liter
gasoline direct injection engine are eligible Class Members.
The Class vehicles include:
2011-2018 and certain 2019 model year Kia Optima vehicles
2012-2018 and certain 2019 model year Kia Sorento vehicles
2011-2018 and certain 2019 model year Kia Sportage vehicles
The plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit claimed several Hyundai
and Kia vehicle models were equipped with a defective Theta engine
prone to fire and failure.
Eligible Kia owners can collect a variety of benefits thanks to the
settlement, such as extended warranties, reimbursements, rebates
and other compensation.
The claim deadline is Aug. 9, 2021, so file a claim ASAP.
AT&T Unlimited Data Throttling $12M Class Action Settlement
AT&T customers with unlimited data plans may be eligible to claim
up to $23 under a $12 million settlement agreement with the company
over alleged data throttling.
The Class consists of all consumers living in California who
purchased an unlimited data plan from AT&T Mobility LLC and who, on
or before March 31, 2021, exceeded the applicable data usage
threshold for any user on the account for one or more monthly
billing cycles such that the user would have been eligible for data
usage slowing or deprioritization by AT&T in those billing cycles
under AT&T's network management policies are considered Class
Members.
The plaintiffs had accused AT&T of luring its customers into buying
smartphones, wireless cards, and service plans through its
promotion of "unlimited" data without telling those customers about
its data-throttling practices.
Exact payment amounts will vary, depending on the number of claims
filed and other factors, but are estimated to be $10, $13, or $23,
based on which group the Class Member falls into.
File your claim by Aug. 13, 2021.
Vivid Seats $7.5M Event Cancellation Class Action Settlement
Anyone who purchased tickets from Vivid Seats for events canceled
due to the coronavirus pandemic may be able to get some of that
money back under the terms of a $7.5 million class action
settlement.
The Class is made up of anyone residing in the United States, its
territories, or Canada, who at any time on or before April 1, 2021,
purchased a ticket through Vivid Seats to an event cancelled,
postponed, or rescheduled between Sept. 29, 2016, and April 1,
2021, and has not yet occurred.
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit had alleged that early in the
pandemic, Vivid Seats retroactively discontinued its long-standing
"100% Buyer Guarantee," which provides ticket buyers with a legally
required full cash refund.
Class Members who file a valid claim may be able to receive a
payment up to the price of their ticket purchase.
The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 30, 2021.
Yes To Grapefruit Unicorn Mask $750K Class Action Settlement
Anyone who bought or used a Yes To Grapefruit Vitamin C
Glow-Boosting Unicorn Mask may be eligible to claim an average of
$3 per product without proof of purchase thanks to a $750,000 class
action settlement with Yes To Inc.
The Class consists of anyone who bought or used the Yes To
Grapefruit Vitamin C Glow-Boosting Unicorn Paper Mask in the U.S.
at any time.
Consumers filed a class action lawsuit after the company recalled
the product in January 2020 following customer complaints of
redness and skin irritation after using the masks.
Class Members will be able to claim an average of $3 per product,
for up to six, without providing proof of purchase.
Claims must be submitted by Aug. 13, 2021.
DG Health Infants' Acetaminophen $1.8M Class Action Settlement
Certain consumers who purchased Dollar General's DG Health Infants'
Acetaminophen may be eligible to benefit from a $1.8 million class
action settlement, regardless of whether they have proof of
purchase.
Anyone in the U.S. who purchased DG Health Infants' Acetaminophen
between Sept. 15, 2016, and June 8, 2021, for personal or household
use is considered part of the Class.
A class action lawsuit had accused Dollar General of using
deceptive practices to market and sell the infants' pain reliever
and fever reducer.
Class Members who are able to provide proof of purchase for all
their covered products during the Class Period will be eligible to
receive a refund of $1.70 for every 1 fluid ounce and 2 fluid
ounces bottle for which they have a valid proof of purchase. There
is no limit on the compensation if the claim includes proof of
purchase, but only one claim may be filed per household.
Those who do not have proof of purchase will be able to claim $1.70
for every 1 fluid ounce and 2 fluid ounces bottle of infants'
acetaminophen for up to three bottles, for maximum payment of $5.10
per household.
Class Members will not be reimbursed for more than three bottles
unless they have proof of purchase for every bottle.
The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 27, 2021.
Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner $4.35M Class Action Settlement
Those who bought certain varieties of Simple Green All-Purpose
Cleaner or other Simple Green products are eligible to claim up to
$30 without proof of purchase as part of a $4.35 million class
action settlement.
The Class consists of anyone who both purchased for personal use,
and not for resale, one or more of the following Simple Green
products in any size or packaging type between May 12, 2016, and
May 17, 2021:
Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner
Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner (Fresh)
Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner (Lemon)
Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner (Lavender)
Simple Green Oxy Solve Total Outdoor Cleaner
Simple Green Oxy Solve House and Siding Cleaner
Simple Green Oxy Solve Concrete and Driveway Cleaner
Simple Green Oxy Solve Deck and Fence Cleaner
Simple Green Wash & Wax
Simple Green All-Purpose Wipes
Simple Green All-Purpose Wipes (Lemon)
Simple Green Multi-Purpose Foaming Cleaner
Simple Green Carpet Cleaner
Simple Green Marine All-Purpose Boat Cleaner
Simple Green Heavy Duty BBQ & Grill Cleaner
Simple Green Heavy Duty BBQ & Grill Cleaner (Aerosol)
Simple Green Oxy Dog Stain & Odor Oxidizer
Simple Green Bio Dog
Simple Green Advanced Dog Bio Boost Stain & Odor Remover
Simple Green Cat Pet Stain & Odor Remover
Simple Green Outdoor Odor Eliminator
Plaintiffs in two class action lawsuits alleged the products' maker
violated consumer protection laws by claiming on the products'
labels that the formulas used are "non-toxic."
Class Members who submit a valid claim without proof of purchase
are eligible for a refund of $3 per product purchased, up to 10
products, for a total of $30. Class Members who submit a claim with
proof of purchase may claim up to $3 per covered, up to the total
number of units purchased that are submitted with proof.
The claim deadline is Aug. 16, 2021.
USAA Car Insurance PIP Coverage Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
Certain policyholders with USAA car insurance and health care
providers in Washington may be able to benefit from a class action
lawsuit settlement.
Two Subclasses are included in this settlement:
The Insured Subclass will consist of anyone who was insured under
the personal injury protection (PIP) coverage of a Washington
automobile insurance policy issued by any of the USAA Entities —
defendants United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and USAA
Casualty Insurance Co., and USAA General Indemnity Co., and
Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Co. — received medical,
health care, or rehabilitation services, or medication or
equipment, from one or more members of the Provider Subclass, and
who made a claim under the PIP coverage of that policy, submitted
(or whose health care provider submitted) to the USAA entities a
bill for such services or products, and who had that bill reduced
by a reason code stating that the billed amount exceeded the
reasonable amount for the service provided from May 30, 2015,
through Jan. 22, 2021.
Members of the Class certified by the federal court in Krista
Peoples v. United Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-01173- RSL in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, also are part of this subclass.
The Provider Subclass is made up of any Washington health care
providers who provided medical, health care, or rehabilitation
services, or medication or equipment to a person insured under the
PIP coverage of a Washington automobile insurance policy issued by
one of the USAA entities, and who submitted to the USAA entities
bills for such services or products pursuant to the PIP coverage of
that insurance policy, who received from the USAA entities as
payment less than the full amount of the charges billed, and whose
bill was reduced by a reason code stating that the billed amount
exceeded the reasonable amount for the service provided May 30,
2015, through Jan. 22, 2021.
Plaintiffs in two class action lawsuits had challenged RF
reductions made to health care bills that were submitted for
payment in Washington under USAA car insurance PIP coverage.
While the exact amount of each Class Member's payment has yet to be
determined, the payments will be calculated as 140 percent of the
RF Reduction on each charge submitted on non-exhausted claims and
100 percent of the RF Reduction on each charge submitted on
exhausted claims.
The deadline to file a claim is Aug. 11, 2021.
Pressed Juicery Greens Juices Ingredients $695K Class Action
Settlement
Consumers who purchased Pressed Juicery Greens Juices between 2014
and 2020 may be eligible for a payment of up to $10 without
providing proof of purchase thanks to a class action settlement.
The Class includes anyone who purchased Pressed Juicery's Greens 2,
Greens 3, and Greens 5 juices in the U.S., its territories, or at
any U.S. military facility or exchange between May 1, 2014, and May
19, 2021.
A class action lawsuit alleged Pressed Juicery falsely advertises
the Greens Juices as containing green vegetables as primary
ingredients when the first ingredients are actually sugary fruit
juices, such as apple or pineapple.
Class Members submitting a valid claim form can receive up to $1
per Pressed Juicery Green Juices for up to 10 items purchased
during the Class Period. That amount could be adjusted depending on
the number of claims filed.
File a claim by Aug. 9, 2021. [GN]
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Trial in Train Derailment Suit to Begin Sept. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that a joint liability
trial will commence on or around September 13, 2021 in the class
action suit related to the train derailment in Lac-Megantic,
Quebec.
On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by
Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary,
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the
"MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The derailment
occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA
Group and while the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train.
Following the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada
under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and MMAR filed for
bankruptcy in the U.S. Plans of arrangement were approved in both
Canada and the U.S., providing for the distribution of
approximately $440 million amongst those claiming derailment
damages.
A number of legal proceedings, set out below, were commenced in
Canada and the U.S. against CP and others:
(1) Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment,
Wildlife and Parks ordered various parties, including CP, to
remediate the derailment site (the "Cleanup Order") and served CP
with a Notice of Claim for $95 million for those costs. CP appealed
the Cleanup Order and contested the Notice of Claim with the
Administrative Tribunal of Quebec. These proceedings are stayed
pending determination of the Attorney General of Quebec ("AGQ")
action.
(2)The AGQ sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court claiming $409
million in damages, which was amended and reduced to $315 million
(the "AGQ Action"). The AGQ Action alleges that: (i) CP was
responsible for the petroleum crude oil from its point of origin
until its delivery to Irving Oil Ltd.; and (ii) CP is vicariously
liable for the acts and omissions of the MMA Group.
(3)A class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of persons
and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in, operating
a business in, or physically present in Lac-Megantic at the time of
the derailment was certified against CP on May 8, 2015 (the "Class
Action"). Other defendants including MMAC and Mr. Thomas Harding
were added to the Class Action on January 25, 2017. The Class
Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful death,
personal injury, property damage, and economic loss.
(4)Eight subrogated insurers sued CP in the Quebec Superior Court
claiming approximately $16 million in damages, which was amended
and reduced to approximately $15 million (the "Promutuel Action"),
and two additional subrogated insurers sued CP claiming
approximately $3 million in damages (the "Royal Action"). Both
actions contain similar allegations as the AGQ Action.
The actions do not identify the subrogated parties. As such, the
extent of any overlap between the damages claimed in these actions
and under the Plans is unclear. The Royal Action is stayed pending
determination of the consolidated proceedings described below.
On December 11, 2017, the AGQ Action, the Class Action and the
Promutuel Action were consolidated. These consolidated claims are
currently scheduled for a joint liability trial commencing on or
around September 20, 2021, followed by a damages trial, if
necessary.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries,
owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and
the United States. The company transports bulk commodities,
including grain, coal, potash, fertilizers, and sulphur; and
merchandise freight, such as energy, chemicals and plastics,
metals, minerals and consumer, automotive, and forest products.
Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is
headquartered in Calgary, Canada.
CHARLOTTE, NC: Faces Protesters' Suit Over Police Officers' Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 2nd, 2020, Lindsay Curlee and Chantel Kennedy say they were
among the hundreds of people who were trapped and gassed on Fourth
Street while peacefully protesting the murder of George Floyd.
"In that moment, I felt like everyone in that crowd felt like they
were dying. They felt like they were going to die they felt like
there was not a way to escape the situation," Curlee says.
The incident led to a CMPD sergeant's suspension. A class-action
lawsuit was filed against the city and several members of CMPD on
behalf of protesters who said they were attacked by police. The
lawsuit includes about 50 plaintiffs, and the claims include:
-- Negligence/gross negligence/negligence per se
-- Assault
-- Battery
-- False imprisonment
-- Negligence infliction of emotional distress
-- Intentional infliction of emotional distress.
WCCB pressed city leaders, and a spokesperson says they do not have
a comment. Kennedy says they want change.
"I want people to be able to come together and be able to exercise
their rights without being met with violence," says Kennedy.
Chief Johnny Jennings announced policy changes, banning the use of
tear gas following an investigation of the incident. But Curlee
says more needs to be done.
"A demand for justice and reparations to be made for the victims of
the kettling incident because it was an unprovoked attack against
citizens of the city that the police force took against us," Curlee
says.
Lawyers expect the number of plaintiffs to grow to hundreds. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 22, 2021, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Coinbase Global, Inc.
(NASDAQ: COIN). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933 and Title 15 United States Code Sections
77k,77l(a)(2) and 77o, including allegations of issuing a series of
materially false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is April 14, 2021 through May 19, 2021.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-coinbase-global-inc/
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Coinbase
Global, Inc. investors who purchased common stock during the Class
Period. You may move the Court no later than September 20, 2021 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions
regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please
contact: Priscilla Scoggins at pms@federmanlaw.com or visit the
firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com. [GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
Coinbase Global Inc. (COIN)
Class Period: Purchase of shares issued in connection with the
April 2021 Direct Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 20, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-coin/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Coinbase Global, Inc. ("Coinbase" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: COIN) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, and docketed under 21-cv-06049, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Coinbase Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Materials") for the
resale of up to 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common stock,
whereby Coinbase began trading as a public company on or around
April 14, 2021 (the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against
the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933.
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Coinbase Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's registration statement and prospectus, you have until
September 20, 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.
[Click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=COIN for
information about joining the class action]
Coinbase "powers the cryptoeconomy," offering a "trusted platform"
for sending and receiving Bitcoin and other digital assets built
using blockchain technology to approximately 43 million retail
users, 7,000 institutions, and 115,000 ecosystem partners in over
100 countries.
On April 14, 2021, Coinbase filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part of the
Registration Statement. The Company registered for the resale of up
to 114,850,769 shares of its Class A common stock by registered
shareholders. According to the Registration Statement, the resale
of the Company's stock was not underwritten by any investment bank
and the registered stockholders would purportedly elect whether or
not to sell their shares. Such sales, if any, would be brokerage
transactions on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, and Coinbase would
purportedly not receive any proceeds from the sale of shares of
Class A common stock by the registered stockholders. Thus,
Coinbase's operations, including its liquidity and capital
resources, would continue to be financed with cash flow from
operating activities and net proceeds from the sale of convertible
preferred stock. As of December 31, 2020, Coinbase had cash and
cash equivalents of $1.1 billion, exclusive of restricted cash and
customer custodial funds.
The complaint alleges that, the Offering Materials were false and
misleading and omitted to state that, at the time of the Offering:
(1) the Company required a sizeable cash injection; (2) the
Company's platform was susceptible to service-level disruptions,
which were increasingly likely to occur as the Company scaled its
services to a larger user base; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Only a month later, the high-flying promise of Coinbase came to a
screaming halt, as Coinbase conceded the need to raise capital and
revealed performance issues that prevented users' ability to trade
cryptocurrencies. On May 17, 2021, Coinbase announced its plans to
raise about $1.25 billion via a convertible bond sale. Then, on May
19, 2021, Coinbase revealed technical problems, including "delays .
. . due to network congestion" effecting those who want to get
their money out.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $23.44 per share,
nearly 10% over two consecutive trading sessions, to close at
$224.80 per share on May 19, 2021, thereby injuring investors.
By the commencement of this action, Coinbase stock traded as low as
$208.00 per share, a significant decline from its April 14, 2021
opening price of $381.00 per share.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, 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, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com. [GN]
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Padilla Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the case, Caleb Padilla, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne
T. Smith, Larry Cash, and Thomas J. Aaron, remains pending.
This purported federal securities class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on May 30, 2019.
It seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018 and alleges
misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for
our common stock.
On November 20, 2019, the District Court appointed Arun
Bhattacharya and Michael Gaviria as lead plaintiffs in the case.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class complaint on January
21, 2020.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint on March 23, 2020. That motion is pending.
Community Health said, "We believe this matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Community Health Systems, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns,
leases, and operates general acute care hospitals in the United
States. The company offers general acute care, emergency room,
general and specialty surgery, critical care, internal medicine,
obstetrics, diagnostic, psychiatric, and rehabilitation services,
as well as skilled nursing and home care services. It also provides
outpatient services at urgent care centers, occupational medicine
clinics, imaging centers, cancer centers, and ambulatory surgery
centers. Community Health Systems, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.
CONCHO RESOURCES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Concho Resources Inc. from February 21, 2018 through
July 31, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleges
violations of the Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Concho securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Concho Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414
or nwiesner@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the well spacing at the Company's Dominator Project was
aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to
believe it would work as intended; (ii) Concho's practice of
implementing tighter well spacing was not relegated to a handful of
"tests" and therefore more widespread than the market was led to
believe; (iii) it was known or recklessly disregarded that any
measures to mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent and/or
impossible; (iv) these risks had manifested during the Class
Period, causing underground well interference and permanently
decreasing production, forcing the Company to scale back production
targets and adopt more conservative spacing measures in its other
projects; (v) it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts
of the widespread well spacing failure; and (vi) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 31, 2019, after the close of trading, Concho released its
financial results for the second quarter 2019. On this date, the
Company revealed that the Dominator Project's 23 wells were spaced
"too tight," and that Concho had already "incorporated learnings
from [the Dominator Project] into its second half of 2019 program
and future Delaware Basin projects." Concho also revealed that it
would be forced to scale back production targets for the rest of
this year, including by reducing its active rig count to 18, down
from 33 in the first quarter 2019.
On this news, Concho sank 22% to close at $75.97 per share on
August 1, 2019, down from the closing price of $97.68 per share on
July 31, 2019.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Concho securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/conchoresourcesinc-cxo-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-422/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]
CORECIVIC INC: Bid to Stay Owino Proceedings Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVESTER OWINO and
JONATHAN GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-01112-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jannis L.
Sammartino entered an order granting in part and denying in part
defendant's motion to stay proceedings pending appeal.
The Court said, "Apart from the pending discovery dispute and any
California-focused discovery consistent with Judge Stormes'
resolution of said dispute, the Court stays this matter pending
resolution of CoreCivic's Rule 23(f) appeal. The Parties shall file
a joint status report, not to exceed 20 pages, within 21 days after
the Ninth Circuit's mandate issues. The joint status report shall
include specific proposals as to how the Parties wish to proceed
with the case at bar in light of the Ninth Circuit's order."
CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a
company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers
and operates others on a concession basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jJhPSM at no extra charge.[CC]
CORMEDIX INC: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix Inc. ("CorMedix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CRMD) securities between July 8, 2020 and May
13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your CorMedix 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/cormedix-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.
In July 2020, CorMedix filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for DefenCath, an
antibacterial and antifungal solution, as a catheter lock solution
with an initial indication for use of preventing certain
catheter-related bloodstream infections.
On March 1, 2021, CorMedix announced the NDA would not be approved
"in its present form" due to "concerns at the third-party
manufacturing facility." Moreover, the FDA "is requiring a manual
extraction study to demonstrate that the labeled volume can be
consistently withdrawn from the vials despite an existing
in-process control to demonstrate fill volume within
specifications."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $5.98 per share, or
39.87%, to close at $9.02 per share on March 1, 2021.
Then, on April 14, 2021, CorMedix announced it would have to take
additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for DefenCath's
manufacturing process, including "[a]ddressing FDA's concerns
regarding the qualification of the filling operation [that] may
necessitate adjustments in the process and generation of additional
data on operating parameters for manufacture of DefenCath."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.44 per share, or
15.37%, to close at $7.93 per share on April 14, 2021.
Then, on May 13, 2021, CorMedix announced that "[b]ased on our
analyses, we have concluded that additional process qualification
will be needed with subsequent validation to address the
deficiencies identified by FDA." Among other things, the Company
was required "to generate sufficient data to demonstrate that [the
filling] process is a controlled process and is consistent with the
agency's requirements for good manufacturing practice."
On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
19.97%, to close at $6.05 per share on May 14, 2021.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
the following: (1) deficiencies existed with respect to DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (2) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the FDA was unlikely to approve the DefenCath NDA for
CRBSIs in its present form; (3) Defendants had downplayed the true
scope of the deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process
and/or at the facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September
20, 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]
DIDI GLOBAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against DiDi Global Inc. f/k/a Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc. ("DiDi" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DIDI) and certain of its officers and directors.
The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06603, is a
securities class action brought by Plaintiff under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded DiDi securities:
(a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering
(the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) between June 30, 2021 and
July 21, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired DiDi
securities (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the IPO, and/or (b) during the
Class Period, you have until September 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
[Click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=DIDI for
information about joining the class action]
DiDi purports to be the world's largest mobility technology
platform. Its four key components are: shared mobility, auto
solutions, electronic mobility, and autonomous driving. The Company
claims to be the "go-to brand in China for shared mobility,"
offering a range of services including ride hailing, taxi hailing,
chauffeur, hitch, and other forms of shared mobility services.
On June 10, 2021, DiDi (then named Xiaoju Kuaizhi Inc.) filed a
registration statement on Form F-1 with the SEC to register its
Class A ordinary shares, which, collectively with subsequently
filed amendments on Forms F-1/A and F-1MEF, a registration
statement on Form F-6, and a June 30, 2021 prospectus on Form 424B4
(the "Prospectus"), forms part of the registration statement for
the Company's IPO (the "Registration Statement").
In the IPO and pursuant to the Registration Statement, including
the Prospectus, the Company sold approximately 316,800,000 American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") at a price of $14.00 per
share, not including the underwriters' option to sell an additional
47,520,000 ADSs. The Company received proceeds of approximately
$4,331.6 million from the Offering, net of underwriting discounts
and commissions.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted to state material
adverse facts. Throughout the Class Period, including in the
Registration Statement, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and
regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of
personal information; (ii) the Cyberspace Administration of China
("CAC") had already asked DiDi weeks or months prior to the IPO to
delay its IPO to conduct a self-examination of its network security
and because of national security concerns; (iii) the Company was
likely to incur heightened regulatory scrutiny and adverse
regulatory action by ignoring the CAC's request to postpone the
IPO; (iv) as a result of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably
likely to be taken down from app stores in the People's Republic of
China (the "PRC" or "China"), which would have an adverse effect on
its financial results and operations; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 2, 2021, multiple news outlets reported that the CAC had
posted an announcement that the CAC had launched an investigation
into DiDi to protect national security and the public interest.
Also on July 2, 2021, DiDi issued a press release entitled "DiDi
announces CyberSecurity Review in China," confirming that the
Company was under investigation and stating that "pursuant to the
announcement posted by the PRC's Cyberspace Administration Office
on July 2, 2021, DiDi is subject to cybersecurity review by the
authority." The Company's press release also states "[d]uring the
review, DiDi is required to suspend new user registration in
China."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87 per share, or
approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on July 2, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
July 4, 2021, DiDi issued a press release entitled "DiDi Announces
App Takedown in China[,]" which announced, in relevant part, that
the CAC ordered smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi
Chuxing" app because the DiDi app "collect[ed] personal information
in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations." Though users
who previously downloaded the DiDi app could continue to use it,
DiDi stated that "the app takedown may have an adverse impact on
its revenue in China."
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that "[w]eeks
before Didi Global, Inc. went public in the U.S., China's
cybersecurity watchdog suggested the Chinese ride-hailing giant
delay its initial public offering and urged it to conduct a
thorough self-examination of its network security, according to
people with knowledge of the matter." Subsequently, Bloomberg and
other sources reported on July 6, 2021, that the CAC had asked DiDi
at least three months earlier to delay its IPO because of national
security concerns.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
On July 9, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "China Orders Stores to Remove More Apps Operated by Didi:
Cyber watchdog says the apps illegally collect personal data" which
reported, among other things, that "China ordered mobile app stores
to remove 25 more apps operated by Didi Global Inc.'s [] China arm,
saying the apps illegally collect personal data, escalating its
regulatory actions against the ride-hailing company"; that "[t]he
cyber watchdog also banned websites and platforms from providing
access to Didi-linked services in China"; that "Didi said it will
follow the authorities' orders" and "guarantees personal data
security"; that "[t]he latest regulatory actions could further dent
Didi's business in its home market, which the company relies
heavily on for revenue"; and that "[s]ome rivals have already
started marketing more aggressively in recent days in an effort to
steal market share."
On July 12, 2021, before market hours, the Company issued a press
release entitled "Didi Announces Takedown of Additional Apps in
China" which announced, inter alia, that "the CAC stated that it
was confirmed that 25 apps operated by the Company in China,
including the apps used by users and drivers, had the problem of
collecting personal information in serious violation of relevant
PRC laws and regulations"; that "[p]ursuant to the PRC's
Cybersecurity Law, the CAC notified app stores to take down these
apps and cease to provide viewing and downloading service in China"
and required the Company to "rectify the problem to ensure the
security of users' personal information"; and that "[t]he Company
expects that the app takedown may have an adverse impact on its
revenue in China."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.87 per share, or
approximately 7.23%, to close at $11.16 per share on July 12, 2021,
further damaging investors.
On July 16, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "China Sends State Security, Police Officials to Didi for
Cybersecurity Probe" which reported, among other things, that
"China sent regulators including state security and police
officials to Didi Global Inc.'s [] ride-hailing business as part of
a cybersecurity investigation"; that "[p]otential outcomes include
financial penalties, suspensions of business licenses and criminal
charges"; and that "[t]he large number of ministries participating
in the probe also highlights the breadth of the data Didi holds and
that is now coming under regulatory scrutiny."
On July 18, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "In the New China, Didi's Data Becomes a Problem" which
reported on the amount and types of data the Company holds and
compiles, including that, among other things, "[u]sers turn over
their cellphone numbers, which in China are linked to their real
names and identifications"; that "[t]hey also often voluntarily
share photos, frequent destinations such as home and office, their
gender, age, occupation and companies"; that "[t]o use other Didi
services such as carpooling or bike sharing, customers might also
have to share other personal information including
facial-recognition data"; that "[d]rivers must give Didi their real
names, vehicle information, criminal records, and credit- and
bank-card information"; that "[t]he 25 million daily rides on its
platform in China feed a database of pickup points, destinations,
routes, distance and duration"; and that "a Guangdong province
transportation official said the company hadn't fully complied with
regulations . . . ."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.91 per share, or
7.6%, to close at $11.06 per share on July 19, 2021, further
damaging investors.
Finally, on July 22, 2021, before market hours, Bloomberg published
an article entitled "China Weighs Unprecedented Penalty for Didi
After U.S. IPO" which reported, inter alia, that "Chinese
regulators are considering serious, perhaps unprecedented,
penalties for Didi Global Inc. after its controversial initial
public offering last month"; that "[r]egulators are weighing a
range of potential punishments, including a fine, suspension of
certain operations or the introduction of a state-owned investor";
that "[a]lso possible is a forced delisting or withdrawal of Didi's
U.S. shares"; and that "Beijing is likely to impose harsher
sanctions on Didi than on Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which
swallowed a record $2.8 billion fine[.]"
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.44 per share, or
nearly 30%, over the next two trading days to close at $8.06 per
share on July 23, 2021, further damaging investors.
As of the time the Complaint was filed, the price of DiDi ADSs
continues to trade below the $14.00 per ADS Offering price,
damaging investors.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, 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, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
ECHO GLOBAL: Labor Related Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------
Echo Global Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit alleging the company violated both
federal and state labor laws in classifying certain employees as
exempt.
The Company has received a letter alleging the Company violated
both federal and state labor laws in classifying certain employees
as exempt and threatening to bring a class action lawsuit against
the Company regarding this allegation.
In March 2021, a class action lawsuit was formally filed against
the Company in this matter. The Company disputes the claims and
intends to vigorously defend the matter.
Echo Global said, "Given the preliminary stage of the matter, the
Company cannot estimate the reasonable possibility or range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter and therefore no
accrual has been made as of June 30, 2021."
Chicago-based Echo Global Logistics, Inc. provides
technology-enabled transportation and supply chain management
services, delivered on a proprietary technology platform, serving
the transportation and logistics needs of its clients. Echo's
web-based technology platform compiles and analyzes data from its
network of over 22,000 transportation providers to serve its
clients' shipping and freight management needs. Echo procures
transportation and provides logistics services for more than 11,600
clients across a wide range of industries, such as manufacturing,
construction, consumer products and retail.
EXAMSOFT: May Face Suit Over Technical Problems During Bar Exam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for Reuters, reports that after technical
problems marred a remote bar exam for some aspiring lawyers, at
least one plaintiffs' firm is investigating potential litigation
against Examsoft, the software company that jurisdictions hired to
deliver the test.
Pennsylvania-based firm Sauder Schelkopf said it has launched a
class action investigation on behalf of July 2021 bar examinees,
some of whom saw their computers crash or freeze during portions of
the licensing exam, which took place July 27 and 28.
It's not clear how many people were impacted by the problems.
ExamSoft, the company that provided the software used to deliver
the exam, initially attributed the problems to computer memory on
certain user devices.
"We continue to investigate what caused some exam-takers to
experience technical difficulties, but do not believe that there is
any merit to or basis for a lawsuit," said ExamSoft spokeswoman
Nici Sandberg on Aug. 2.
Some examinees reported on Twitter that they had to reboot their
computers during test sessions, losing exam time in the process.
For some, the delay was just a few minutes, though others said they
were locked out of the test for a half hour or more.
Jurisdictions took different approaches to the bar exam. New York,
California, and Florida were among the 29 that gave the test
remotely. Texas was among the 21 jurisdictions that delivered the
exam in person.
A spokeswoman for the National Conference of Bar Examiners, which
designs the bar exam, said on Aug. 2 that it is still receiving
information from ExamSoft about the problem and doesn't yet know
how many examinees were impacted.
Attorneys with Sauder Schelkopf did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Aug. 2 on its investigation, which it
announced on its website.
The firm specializes in class actions and personal injury cases.
Name partner Joseph Sauder was co-counsel in a proposed class
action brought against the University of Southern California
alleging that university gynecologist George Tyndall sexually
abused thousands of women. The university settled the case for $215
million in 2018. Tyndall has denied wrongdoing.
ExamSoft has been sued in the past over bar exam tech glitches. In
2015 the company agreed to pay $2.1 million to settle a
consolidated class action brought by test takers who encountered
delays in uploading their essay responses during the July 2014 bar
exam. That problem hit test takers in 43 states and was dubbed
"Barmageddon" by legal bloggers. The settlement amounted to $90 for
each examinee who experienced uploading delays during the test.
[GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Appeal on the Settlement of BIPA-Related Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the objector filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal in the class action suit related to
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), to which the court
dismissed.
On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions"
facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and seeking statutory damages and
injunctive relief.
On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois
residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both
parties' motions for summary judgment.
On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the company's petition for review of the class
certification order and stayed the proceeding. On August 8, 2019,
the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification order.
On December 2, 2019, the company filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit,
which was denied.
On January 15, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit, which provided for a payment of
$550 million by the company and was subject to court approval.
On or about May 8, 2020, the parties executed a formal settlement
agreement, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement by the district court.
On June 4, 2020, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion
without prejudice.
On July 22, 2020, the parties executed an amended settlement
agreement, which, among other terms, provides for a payment of $650
million by the company.
On February 26, 2021, the court granted final approval of the
settlement, and the payment was made in March 2021.
On March 27 and March 29, 2021, objectors filed notices of appeal
of the order granting final approval of the settlement.
On June 15, 2021, one of the objectors filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal voluntarily, and the court entered such dismissal on
June 22, 2021.
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Cyber-Attack Suit Granted Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement in the 2018 consolidated class action
suit related to a cyber-attack.
Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions
were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and
elsewhere against the company alleging violations of consumer
protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a
third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in
Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain
profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On
November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for
injunctive relief purposes, but denied certification of a class for
purposes of pursuing damages.
On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle to resolve the lawsuit.
On November 15, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.
On May 6, 2021, the court granted final approval of the settlement.
Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without
merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the
events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish
Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries."
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit related to the company's
Platform & User Data Practices.
Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its
directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws,
breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in
connection with our platform and user data practices as well as the
misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with
third parties in violation of the company's terms and policies, and
seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief.
Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed
in federal court in the United States against the company and
certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of
securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's
earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking
unspecified damages.
These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
with the putative securities class action described above relating
to our platform and user data practices.
On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class
action, with leave to amend.
On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action.
On August 7, 2020, the district court granted the company's motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint, with leave to amend.
On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated putative securities class action. The company believes
these lawsuits are without merit, and the company is vigorously
defending them.
In addition, the company's platform and user data practices, as
well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a
developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in
the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions.
The company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to
resolve the FTC inquiry, which took effect in April 2020. Among
other matters, the company's settlement with the FTC required us to
pay a penalty of $5.0 billion, which was paid in April 2020 upon
the effectiveness of the modified consent order.
The state attorney general's inquiry and certain government
inquiries in other jurisdictions remain ongoing.
On July 16, 2021, a stockholder derivative action was filed in
Delaware Chancery Court against certain of our directors and
officers asserting breach of fiduciary duty and related claims
relating to our historical platform and user data practices, as
well as our settlement with the FTC.
On July 20, 2021, other stockholders filed an amended derivative
complaint in a related Delaware Chancery Court action, which
asserts breach of fiduciary duty and related claims
Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on
building products that enable people to connect and share through
mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company
also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in
the world around them, enables people to share their opinions,
ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences
ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by
accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook,
Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in
Menlo Park, California.
FRESNO COUNTY, CA: Residents File Water Contamination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rodriguez at fresnobee.com reports that a Fresno County
Superior Court judge has cleared the way for lawyers to represent
thousands of northeast Fresno residents who accused the city in
2016 of ruining their pipes and contaminating their drinking
water.
Judge Rosemary McGuire granted a motion to certify the class that
represents between 1,800 to 2,400 residents whose city water became
discolored and contaminated in 2016.
What McGuire did was make the multiple claims more manageable by
having only one case instead of thousands of individual lawsuits.
The residents, lead by Karen and Michael Micheli, allege the city's
water destroyed their galvanized plumbing, causing iron and other
heavy metals to leach into their tap water from the corroded
plumbing.
What caused the problem?
Experts believe it started after the city began using surface
water, treated by the Northeast Fresno Surface Water Treatment
Facility, in the water supply, causing a chemical reaction
resulting in discolored water and accelerated corrosion in pipes
delivering water. That eventually led to the contamination of the
municipal water with excessive levels of lead and other toxic
substances, according to the lawsuit.
Stuart R. Chandler, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs,
said that while city officials initially acknowledged
responsibility and vowed to help the affected homeowners replace
their corroded galvanized plumbing, it did not make good on its
promise.
Instead, Chandler said, the city has fought "tooth and nail" to
stop the lawsuits from being combined into a class-action case.
"What the city was trying to do is to have each homeowner bring an
individual claim against the city," Chandler said. "But that takes
a significant amount of time and money."
The potential cost for replacing the damaged plumbing could run
into the "tens of millions," Chandler said.
"For which the city is insured," he added. "They have multiple
layers of insurance."
Chandler said it is possible the city could appeal the judge's
ruling. But Sontaya Rose, the city's communications director, said
that decision will be up to the City Council.
"If there is the decision to so appeal, it will be reported out
after the closed session meeting. We have not yet determined which
council meeting this item will be on the agenda," she said.
To be included as part of the class action, you must be the owner
of residential single-family real property located within the City
of Fresno's Discolored Water investigation area (from E. Copper
Avenue to E. Sierra Avenue, and from Highway 41 to N. Willow
Avenue).
Also, you must have lived in the area anytime from Jan. 1, 2016 to
the present and had galvanized iron plumbing, received water
service from the City of Fresno and reported discolored "rusty"
water at that address to the city.
Residents who have released their claims against the city cannot be
a part of the class action suit.
Chandler said the court also certified two subclasses - one for
class members who obtained water quality test results from the city
indicating iron at any tested fixture above 0.3 mg/L, and another
for xlass members who have not obtained water quality test results
from the City of Fresno.
A case management conference is set for Aug. 31 in Dept. 502 in the
B.F. Sisk Court, 1130 O Street. [GN]
FRESNO, CA: Class Action Over Tainted Drinking Water Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California judge certified on Aug. 2 a class
action by Fresno residents who claim a city's water management
project damaged their homes' galvanized plumbing and contaminated
their drinking water, dismissing what she called numerous
"meritless objections" from the city. [GN]
FULL TRUCK: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Aug. 2
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Full Truck
Alliance Co. Ltd. ("Full Truck" or the "Company") (NYSE: YMM) and
certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of
federal securities laws. If you purchased Full Truck American
Depository Shares ("ADSs") you are encouraged to contact
Scott+Scott attorney Rhiana Swartz for additional information at
(844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com.
Full Truck operates a digital freight platform that connects
shippers with truckers to facilitate shipments in the People's
Republic of China. It offers freight listing, matching, and
brokerage services; and online transaction services, as well as
various value-added services.
Full Truck held its initial public offering ("IPO") in the United
States in June 2021, offering approximately 82,500,000 ADSs to the
investing public at $19.00 per ADS.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose the following in the IPO's offering documents;
specifically: (1) Full Truck's apps Yunmanman and Huochebang would
face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace
Administration of China ("CAC"); (2) the CAC would require Full
Truck to suspend new user registration; (3) Full Truck needed to
conduct a "comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity
risks;" (4) Full Truck needed to "continue to improve its
cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities;" and (5) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.
On July 5, 2021, the Company issued a press release stating that it
would have to suspend new user registration while the Cybersecurity
Review Office of the CAC conducted a cybersecurity review of Full
Truck's Yunmanman and Huochebang apps.
On this news, Full Truck's ADSs fell $1.27 per share - over 6% - to
close at $17.75 per ADS on July 6, 2021.
What You Can Do
If you purchased or otherwise own Full Truck ADSs, and you wish to
discuss this lawsuit, please contact attorney Rhiana Swartz at
(844) 818-6980, or at rswartz@scott-scott.com. The deadline to file
for lead plaintiff is September 10, 2021.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, Virginia, California,
and Ohio.
Attorney Advertising
Contacts:
Rhiana Swartz
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Ave, 17th Fl, NY, NY 10169
(844) 818-6980
rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]
GCI LIBERTY: October 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, WEST PALM
BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, and SHEET METAL
WORKERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 80 PENSION TRUST FUND, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN C. MALONE, GREGORY B. MAFFEI, GREGG L. ENGLES,
RONALD A. DUNCAN, DONNE F. FISHER, and RICHARD R. GREEN,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2020-0880-SG
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
All holders of GCI Liberty, Inc. ("GCI Liberty") Series A common
stock as of December 18, 2020, the date of the consummation of the
merger of GCI Liberty and a subsidiary of Liberty Broadband
Corporation (the "Merger") (the "Settlement Class").1
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of
themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $110,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"). If approved by the Court, the Settlement will
resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on October 5,
2021, at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Sam Glasscock III, Vice
Chancellor, either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware, Sussex County, Court of Chancery Courthouse, 34 The
Circle, Georgetown, DE 19947, or by telephone or video conference
(in the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things:
(i) whether the Action may be permanently maintained as a non-opt
out class action and whether the Settlement Class should be
certified permanently, for purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to
Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2); (ii) whether
Plaintiffs may be permanently designated as representatives for the
Settlement Class and Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel as counsel for the
Settlement Class, and whether Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Lead
Counsel have adequately represented the interests of the Settlement
Class in the Action; (iii) whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, Compromise, and Release dated June 14, 2021 (the
"Stipulation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement
Class, and should be approved by the Court; (iv) whether a
Judgment, substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the
Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice
against Defendants; (v) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of
the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should
therefore be approved; (vi) whether the application by Plaintiffs'
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses in
connection with the benefits achieved under the Settlement should
be approved; and (vii) to consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.
The ongoing COVID-19 health emergency is a fluid situation that
creates the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the
Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise
allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or video,
without further written notice to Class Members. In order to
determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have
changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by phone
or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and
the Settlement website, www.GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com,
before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any
updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to
the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or
telephonic appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com. Also,
if the Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the
Settlement Hearing by telephone or video conference, the
information needed to access the conference will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at GCI Liberty Stockholder
Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173138, Milwaukee, WI
53217, 1-877-777-9248, info@GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com. A
copy of the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement
website, www.GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to "Eligible Class Members" in accordance with the proposed
Plan of Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of
allocation as is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of
Allocation, "Eligible Class Members" consist of Class Members who
held shares of GCI Liberty Series A common stock at the Merger's
Closing and therefore received or were entitled to receive the
Merger Consideration for their Eligible Shares. Pursuant to the
proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Class Member will be
eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund
equal to the product of (i) the number of Eligible Shares held by
the Eligible Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery" for the
Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total amount
of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of Eligible Shares.
As explained in further detail in the Notice, pursuant to the Plan
of Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible
Class Members will be made in the same manner in which Eligible
Class Members received the Merger Consideration. Eligible Class
Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment
from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses in connection with the
Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiffs'
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than September 21, 2021, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
GCI Liberty Stockholder Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173138
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-777-9248
info@GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com
www.GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:
Mark Lebovitch
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
DATED: August 2, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Notice"), available at
www.GCILibertyStockholderLitigation.com. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Google+ Users Receive Settlement Over Data Leak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadeem Sarwar at screenrant.com reports that Google has started to
pay out a handsome $2.15 settlement to those who filled a legal
form as one of the many Google+ users affected by a data leak that
the company initially tried to ignore. Google+ - arguably one of
Big G's greatest failures - was launched back in 2011 to challenge
the social media juggernaut that was Facebook. The company tried
aggressive integration with other popular services such as YouTube
and Drive to boost adoption, but even a massive redesign and
millions spent in marketing couldn't save the service from a
permanent relocation to the infamous Google Graveyard in 2019.
The service had its fair share of controversies in its decade-long
lifespan. To give it a push, Google Reader had to lose some of its
key social features - a move that received significant backlash
from users. The decision to require users that they use their real
name to sign up for the service was also criticized and reversed
soon after. Another weird product decision was mandating a Google+
account for commenting on YouTube videos, something even YouTube
co-founder Jawed Karim was not too happy about. However, one of the
final nails in the coffin was a privacy violation that led to the
shutdown of Google+ for good.
Courtesy of the Google+ Profile Litigation, Google+ users who
signed up as a class member following a class action lawsuit are
now being paid $2.15 via PayPal or electronic bank-to-bank payment.
As part of the settlement that was approved by the court, Google
was ordered to pay $7.5 million, a sum that was supposed to cover
the legal and administrative costs, with the rest issued to members
as a payment. Now, the number of Settlement Class Members stands at
1,720,029, with each one entitled to a measly payout of $2.15. For
those that signed as one of the claimants before the October 8
deadline last year, they will receive the settlement payout before
August 14, 2021. More importantly, accepting the payout means the
affected party will no longer be able to sue Google.
A Handsome Fee For A Privacy Cover-Up
In 2018, a report by The Wall Street Journal unearthed details of a
bug that exposed the private profile information of hundreds of
thousands of Google+ users. Google was reportedly aware of the
issue, but chose to remain silent fearing damage to its reputation
and the regulatory scrutiny that would likely follow. The company
apparently wanted to avoid the media scrutiny around Big Tech after
Facebook's own Cambridge Analytica fiasco, but trying to keep it
quiet ended up killing an ambitious project in its entirety.
Google's own investigation into the issue, as part of its Project
Strobe, revealed that up to 500,000 Google+ accounts were affected
by the API flaw which let developers and third-parties access user
details, including name, email address, occupation, gender, and age
from private profiles.
Developers were reportedly able to access the user information from
private Google+ profiles for a long spell between 2015 and 2018,
even though Google claims that there were no incidents of data
misuse. More importantly, Google chose not to notify users affected
by the flaw, which is what invited the class action lawsuit in the
first place. The key repercussion of the incident following
Google's eventual disclosure was shutting down Google+ access to
consumers citing low user engagement. The company also launched
more granular account permissions, updated its user data policy for
the Gmail API, and even limited an Android app's ability to access
call logs and SMS permissions. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Maria Schneider Seeks Class Expansion in Copyright Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Maxwell, writing for TorrentFreak, reports that Maria
Schneider's class action lawsuit against YouTube is being fought
tooth and nail by both sides, centering around YouTube's alleged
restriction of access to takedown tools and a failure to terminate
repeat copyright infringers. After shadowy company 'Pirate Monitor'
exited the action, Schneider now wants to add new plaintiffs but
YouTube and Google are having none of it.
More than a year after Grammy award-winning musician Maria
Schneider filed a class action lawsuit against YouTube, claiming
massive infringement on the platform and serious deficiencies in
copyright enforcement measures, the parties are still bumping heads
in court.
Schneider's grievances are wide-ranging and include allegations
that YouTube restricts access to its takedown tools, profits from
piracy, and fails to disconnect repeat infringers due to them
receiving ‘protection' under YouTube's Content ID system.
As previously reported, shadowy business entity 'Pirate Monitor'
claimed to be a victim of YouTube's policies but following a
YouTube investigation, was found to have secretly uploaded its own
content before sending bogus takedown notices. It later exited the
lawsuit but YouTube wasn't letting that go.
Despite this apparent canary in the coalmine, the action has
continued, with Schneider asking the court to compel YouTube to
hand over information on every user that had received a takedown
notice filed against their account since 2015, to determine whether
YouTube's repeat infringer policies come up to scratch.
Back in March, Schneider indicated that she wanted to add dozens
more copyright works to the three originally listed in the case but
denied that she needed to identify each infringement of the works
on YouTube. Without access to Content ID - an argument that circles
back to the core of her complaint - that would be laborious, she
argued.
Motion For Leave to File Amended Complaint
Early July, Schneider filed a motion with the court for leave to
file her first amended complaint. Schneider indicated she wanted to
add two companies - Uniglobe Entertainment, LLC and AST Publishing.
YouTube and Google were not impressed.
"The proposed amendments, most notably to add two new parties as
putative class representatives, come only after discovery confirmed
glaring deficiencies in Schneider's claims, and after Pirate
Monitor dismissed its claims with prejudice under a cloud of
fraudulent behavior," the companies told the court.
"The request for leave continues Schneider's shifting sands
approach to the litigation. Her original complaint identified only
three copyrighted works over which she was suing, and did not
identify a single alleged infringement of those works on YouTube.
Schneider now proposes amending to add seventy-five new copyrighted
works to the case, still without identifying corresponding alleged
infringements."
YouTube/Google said the proposed "dramatic expansion" of
Schneider's claims sit alongside her refusal to accept a deadline
for "closing the universe" of works in suit. The proposed new
plaintiffs only make matters worse, since they too have not
provided a list of copyrighted works or alleged infringements.
Overall, YouTube believes it has spent more than enough time ("many
hundreds of hours") on discovery when dealing with the claims of
Schneider and Pirate Monitor, who - according to YouTube - "turned
out to be a fraudster". Going over everything again would create a
huge burden when considering the new claims of US-based Uniglobe
(which reportedly has rights over three motion pictures) and AST, a
Russian publishing house, which asserts rights over at least nine
print and audiobooks.
In summary, YouTube told the court that a year into the case,
Schneider's proposed amendments are not only too late but also
raise new works and new legal issues, which would unfairly
prejudice YouTube. For these reasons and more, YouTube asked the
court to deny Schnieder's motion for leave to amend.
Schneider's Reply - Court Should Allow Amended Complaint
In her response, Schneider argues that she is completely within her
rights to amend her complaint and places the blame for delays
firmly on YouTube and Google.
Schneider says that "delay alone" is not sufficient to deny leave
to amend and repeats that she is under no obligation to identify
the 78 works now being proposed. In addition, YouTube/Google's
claims that the addition of AST and Uniglobe was unduly delayed
"fares no better", since negotiations had been underway with these
companies since late 2020.
Initial investigations apparently took several months and
additional time was spent in a "weeks-long meet-and-confer" with
YouTube/Google to determine whether they would consent to the
filing of the amendments.
Schneider then provides a laundry list of events that she claims
resulted in YouTube itself introducing delays, including YouTube
asking for time to consider the amended complaint before consent
was provided, asking for more time to review it, and then not
objecting to the holding of meet-and-confer discussions concerning
the amendments.
New Plaintiffs Aren't Meant to Make Up For Case ‘Weaknesses'
Interestingly, Schneider also asks the court not to credit
YouTube/Google's argument that the inclusion of AST and Uniglobe is
a measure to make up for supposed weaknesses in her case. That
appears to relate to a licensing agreement with Schneider's
publisher that meant that some of her works were included in the
Content ID program that Schenider insists she has been denied
access to.
"Defendants appear to refer to a licensing agreement with
Schneider's publisher. But that agreement licenses only the works
that Schneider's publisher controlled and had the right to
license," Schneider's counsel writes.
"But Schneider's agreement with her publisher did not grant the
publisher control over her works and did not provide her publisher
the right to license those works without her written consent, which
was never given, which means YouTube's licensing agreement does not
extend to Schneider's works. Moreover, even if some of her works
were inappropriately part of Content ID for some period of time,
not all works were.
"Regardless, even if Schneider's claim was somehow deficient, that
is not a valid reason to deny leave to amend, particularly at this
stage of the proceeding," the filing continues.
"Defendants claim that amendment would ‘moot' the work it has
already undertaken . . [ . . ] . . but because Schneider is not
withdrawing her claim, whatever work Defendants have already
undertaken remains relevant."
The court is yet to rule on the motion to file Schneider's amended
complaint but whatever the outcome, this case is clearly being
fought and challenged at every turn. That tends to suggest that the
year spent on it thus far could be just the beginning in what is
already a controversial and extremely expensive piece of
litigation. [GN]
GRUBHUB INC: Seeks to Arbitrate Delivery Fee Cap Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Grubhub wants to send to arbitration a proposed
class action accusing the online food-ordering giant of violating
New York City's 20% cap on delivery service fees, telling a federal
court that the suit's lead plaintiff agreed to arbitrate disputes
with the company on an individual basis. [GN]
HOME POINT: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 3 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
RLX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18159&wire=1
HMPT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/home-point-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18159&wire=1
BLCT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bluecity-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=18159&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to
the documents issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18159&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, the Company's then-existing
exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a national
standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them into line with
ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's reported financials
were not nearly as robust as the offering materials projected, nor
were they indicative of future results. As a result, investors
purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated prices.
Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 29, 2021
initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/home-point-capital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18159&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) Home Point's aggressive
expansion of its broker partners would dramatically increase the
Company'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 would be subject to the same
competitive pressures; (iii) accordingly, the Company had
overstated its business and financial prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
Bluecity Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:BLCT)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired BlueCity American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 8, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 17, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bluecity-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=18159&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) Defendants had overstated
BlueCity's business and financial prospects; (2) the Company was
ill-equipped to absorb the costs of becoming a publicly traded
company, including IPO- and growth-related costs; (3) as a result
of all the foregoing, Defendants had misrepresented the Company's
capability for sustainable growth; and (4) as a result, the
Offering Documents were materially false or misleading and/or
failed to state information required to be stated therein.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard 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]
HYCROFT GOLD: Kim Spencer Discloses Securities Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
This Notice of Settlement Approval is directed to all persons,
excluding certain persons associated with the Defendants, who
acquired common shares of Hycroft Mining Corporation ("Hycroft")
pursuant to the secondary public offering by way of a final short
form prospectus dated May 9, 2013, during its distribution period
ending May 17, 2013, and continued to hold those common shares on
July 22, 2013 ("Class Members" and the "Class").
Purpose of this notice:
A class action brought on behalf of Class Members has been settled.
The Settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. This Notice provides Class Members with information about
how to submit a Claim Form to the Administrator in order to
participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount.
The action:
On August 14, 2014, a proposed class action was commenced on behalf
of investors who purchased shares pursuant to a secondary public
offering in the Ontario Superior Court: LBP Holdings Ltd. v. Allied
Nevada Gold Corp., Scott A. Caldwell, Robert M. Buchan, Cormark
Securities Inc., and Dundee Securities Limited, brought in the
Court under Court File No. CV-14-50851300-CP (the " Action"). The
Plaintiff in the Action alleges that the Defendant made
misrepresentations related to a short-form prospectus dated May 9,
2013.
The settlement of the Action, without an admission of liability on
the part of the Defendant, was approved by The Honourable Justice
Belobaba on July 30, 2021. This notice provides a summary of the
settlement.
Summary of the settlement terms:
The Defendants in this Action will pay or cause to be paid USD
$4,375,000 (the "Settlement Amount"), in full and final settlement
of all claims against it in the Action. The Settlement Amount, less
the lawyers' fees and disbursements, administrator's expenses, and
taxes (the "Net Settlement Amount"), if approved by the Court, will
be distributed to the Class in accordance with the court-approved
Plan of Allocation. The Settlement Agreement may be viewed at
https://www.investorcomplexlaw.com/hycroft-mining-corporation/ or
at www.canadianalliednevadasecuritiessettlement.ca.
How to make a claim for compensation:
Claims For Compensation Must Be Received By December 4, 2021
Each Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form in the online
claims administration portal on or before 5:00 pm Eastern Standard
Time on December 4, 2021 in order to participate in the
settlement.
The Claim Form can be accessed at
www.portal.canadianalliednevadasecuritiessettlement.ca and/or
through the website at
www.canadianalliednevadasecuritiessettlement.ca or obtained by
calling the Administrator at 1-877-400-1211 or by emailing
claims@trilogyclassactions.ca.
If you do not submit a completed Claim Form by December 4, 2021,
you will not receive any part of the Net Settlement Amount.
The Court appointed Paul Battaglia of Trilogy Class Action Services
as the Administrator of the settlement to, among other things: (i)
receive and process Claim Forms; (ii) decide eligibility for
compensation; and (iii) distribute the net Settlement Amount to
eligible Class Members.
The Claim Form should be submitted to the Administrator by using
the secure Online Claims System at
www.portal.canadianalliednevadasecuritiessettlement.ca and/or
www.canadianalliednevadasecuritiessettlement.ca. You may submit a
paper Claim Form only if you do not have internet access. The paper
Claim Form may be sent by mail or courier to the Administrator:
Trilogy Class Action Services
117 Queen Street, P.O. Box. 1000
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, L0S 1J0
Attention: Hycroft Class Action
Fax: 416-342-1761
Email: claims@trilogyclassactions.ca [GN]
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Hit With Class-Action Over $23M Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Waddell at thinkadvisor.com reports that electronic
brokerage Interactive Brokers was hit with a class-action lawsuit
for allegedly aiding and abetting a $23 million Ponzi scheme.
According to the lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, the firm recognized Haena
Park's account was used to conduct a fraud, identifying her
suspicious activity in reports reviewed by compliance analysts more
than a dozen times during the life of the scheme.
Park, according to BrokerCheck, is a previously registered broker
who also worked at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.
"Rather than scrutinize the activity, freeze the account, and
report Park to the authorities, IB disregarded its own compliance
department's red flags and written internal compliance policies to
further aid Park, a lucrative IB customer, to continue the scheme
through its brokerage services," the complaint states.
Through her Interactive Brokers' account, Park lost over $14
million of her investors' contributions before the scheme was
discovered by regulators and Park was arrested, the complaint
states. She was sentenced to three years in prison in 2018.
In 2020, IB's participation in the scheme came to light when the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority and Commodity Futures Trading Commission "all
simultaneously announced a joint action against IB for its role in
the fraud and for other regulatory compliance violations," the suit
states.
In August 2020, Interactive Brokers agreed to pay the SEC $38
million over repeated failures to file suspicious activity
reports.
FINRA fined Interactive Brokers LLC $15 million on Aug. 10, 2020
for widespread failures in the firm's anti-money laundering (AML)
program, which persisted for more than five years.
For the first time in the CFTC's history, it found an investment
firm liable for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, according to
the complaint. The action seeks to recover from IB the damages
sustained as a result of the firm's wrongdoing and substantial
assistance in the Park scheme.
Interactive Brokers said in a statement shared with ThinkAdvisor
that it had "not yet been served with this complaint."
Interactive Brokers Group LLC is one of the world's largest
brokers. It has over $9 billion in equity capital, has more than a
million client accounts in more than 200 countries and territories
and executes about 2.5 million trades per day.
Its subsidiary, IB, is the electronic brokerage subsidiary of IBG
LLC and is registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC and as a
futures commission merchant with the CFTC.[GN]
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bid to DIsmiss Rice Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in Richard Rice, as Trustee of the Richard E. and
Melinda Rice Revocable Family Trust 5/9/90, and Christian
Stankevitz v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., is pending.
On November 5, 2020, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled Chauhan v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.
The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on January 4, 2021.
The Court appointed lead plaintiff in the lawsuit on January 25,
2021, and the lead plaintiff filed a corrected amended complaint on
March 15, 2021, captioned Richard Rice, as Trustee of the Richard
E. and Melinda Rice Revocable Family Trust 5/9/90, and Christian
Stankevitz v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.
The lead plaintiff claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020.
This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from September 28, 2019 to October 7,
2020, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the
Company's New Drug Application for Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or
"OCA") for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH") and the use of Ocaliva in patients with
primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), as well as the Company's
operations, financial performance and prospects.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.
On April 26, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On May 26, 2021, the plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss, and on June 9, 2021, the Company filed a reply brief.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis and biliary
atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva.
Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United
States, Europe and Canada.
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Liu and Fu Appeal Dismissal of Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal made in
the purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Hou Liu and
Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., is pending.
On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action,
initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.
The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018,
and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31,
2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants.
The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017.
This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public
disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20,
2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements
regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related
matters, as well as the Company's operations, financial performance
and prospects.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March
26, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety, and on March 27, 2020 the Court
entered judgment in favor of the Company.
On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the
judgment and grant leave to file a second amended complaint. On
September 9, 2020, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to set
aside the judgment and grant leave to file a second amended
complaint, finding that the proposed second amended complaint did
not cure the deficiencies identified in the amended complaint.
On October 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and on
January 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an appellate brief
challenging the March 27, 2020 judgment, the September 9, 2020
judgment and other orders entered in this action.
On April 23, 2021, the Company filed a brief in response in the
Second Circuit appellate proceeding. On May 14, 2021, the
plaintiffs filed a reply brief.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of novel
therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases,
including primary biliary cholangitis, nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis and biliary
atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva.
Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United
States, Europe and Canada.
INTERSECT ENT: October 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AVI YARON, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERSECT ENT, INC., LISA D.
EARNHARDT, JERYL L. HILLEMAN,
and ROBERT H. BINNEY, JR.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 4:19-cv-02647-JSW
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Intersect ENT, Inc. ("Intersect") common stock
between February 27, 2018 and August 1, 2019, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain Persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II)
Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), which is available at
www.IntersectSecuritiesLitigation.com or will be mailed to you upon
request to the Claims Administrator, as described further below.
Unless defined herein, capitalized words used in this Summary
Notice are defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
dated May 13, 2021 ("Stipulation"), which is available at
www.IntersectSecuritiesLitigation.com.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action for $1,900,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all
claims in the Action against Defendants and release all Released
Plaintiffs' Claims against Defendants' Releasees.
A hearing will be held on October 22, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Hon. Jeffrey S. White, Senior District Judge, at the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 5, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA
94612 to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the
Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.IntersectSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies
of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator
at Avi Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.,
P.O. Box 173131, Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-777-9611.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online or postmarked no later than
November 18, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a timely and valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will nevertheless be bound by the terms of the Settlement
and any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than October 1, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
timely and validly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by the terms of the Settlement or any judgments
or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than October 1, 2021, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Intersect,
Defendants, or Defendants' Counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Avi Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al.
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173131
Milwaukee, WI 53217
877-777-9611
www.IntersectSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
Attn: Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
-OR-
Holzer & Holzer, LLC
Attn: Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30338
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
By Order of the Court [GN]
ITALY: Impact of Class Action Reform on Financial Firms, Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that the 2021 Italian class action law reform
may entail increased litigation involving financial institutions in
traditional areas as well as in cybersecurity and data breach
instances and cryptocurrency-related disputes.
The new Italian class action bill (Law no. 31 of 12 April 2019) was
passed in 2019 and - after a number of postponements - finally
entered into force on 19 May 2021. Although class actions are
available in Italy since 2007, they had not proven successful due
to the strict admissibility test for class certification.
Thus, the new reformed law may be seen as a true revolution in the
Italian litigation arena. It is particularly favourable to
claimants as it provides for (i) a broader scope of application and
(ii) incentive mechanisms aimed at encouraging the use of the class
action system.
Among the main innovations of the new law:
-- The new class action is no longer reserved to consumers and end
users, and is open to all kinds of damage claims: from now on,
class actions may be brought for the enforcement of "homogeneous
rights" by anyone (including legal entities and in B2B
relationships) claiming damage redress against the "author of the
harmful behaviour" or seeking injunctive measures.
-- The new class action provides for a double opt-in window.
Claimants can now join the class once the action is admitted, right
before the proceedings on the merits start, and also up to 5 months
after the decision on the merits is issued.
-- The new bill introduces economic incentives by providing for a
monetary reward, if the action is successful, for the lead
plaintiff's lawyer and for the "common representative" of the
class.
The reform entails important criticalities for businesses including
banks and financial institutions, which need to prepare to
potentially face a greater number of collective actions with no
certainties as to the number of potential class members (and hence,
as to the potential exposure) and increased difficulties in
reaching early settlements. It is therefore advisable that they
adopt internal policies to mitigate risk exposure and conceive new
defensive strategies.
Class actions and Italian banks
In Italy financial institutions had to face class actions even
before the entry into force of the new law. In the past, bank
customers have brought class actions against Italy's first and
second largest financial institutions seeking to annul contractual
clauses prescribing overdraft fee charges to clients. Class actions
brought in 2010 and 2012 against Unicredit bank and Intesa San
Paolo bank before the Courts of Rome and Turin ultimately did not
pass the admissibility test whilst another class action, brought by
a primary Italian consumers association against Intesa San Paolo
bank once again before the Court of Turin, was considered
admissible in September 2013, was carried out, and was definitively
upheld in 2019 by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation. Recently,
the Court of Appeal of Turin - pursuant to the 2019 Supreme Court
ruling - also admitted to the class a number of opters-in who had
previously been excluded as lacking the signature notarization
requirement on the relevant contracts. Thus, the bank was ordered
to repay the unlawful charges in favour of all the members of the
class including opters-in.
Recently, Italy has experienced an increase in cybersecurity and
data breach litigation which is expected to further expand. In many
cases banks have been sued by customers for alleged abusive access
to their personal data. In particular, on 10 June 2020 the Italian
Data Protection Authority (Garante Privacy) sanctioned Unicredit
bank to pay €600,000 for the data breach occurred in 2016 to the
detriment of about 700,000 customers. Despite the bank having
denounced abusive access to its databanks, the Garante Privacy
proceeded with sanctioning Unicredit having found numerous
violations of the Italian Privacy Code.
In recent times, Italy is also experiencing an increase in
cryptocurrency-connected litigation; investors allege breaches of
the Italian Consolidated Financial Act and AML Regulation by
financial entities and seek return of converted and/or invested
amounts.
More and more disputes may arise in the above contexts in the near
future as a consequence of the entry into force of the new Italian
class action, characterised by a broader scope and which will allow
customers seeking to pursue collective claims and damage redress to
benefit from increased pro-claimant procedural rules and
substantial economic incentives to plaintiffs' lawyers and class
representatives.
International update and next steps
24 November 2020 marks the final approval of EU Directive 2020/1828
of the European Parliament and Council on Representative Actions
for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers (and
repealing EC Directive 2009/22) regulating the initiation by
'qualified entities' of injunctive and redress collective measures
through stand-alone and cross-border collective actions covering
infringements by traders of the provisions of 66 European
regulations. The Directive requires EU Member States, including
Italy, to adapt their procedural collective action and redress
mechanism by 25 December 2022, with application as from 25 June
2023.
It remains to be seen how the implementation of the Directive and
the reformed Italian class action system will combine. [GN]
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Iterum Therapeutics plc ("Iterum" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: ITRM) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Iterum securities between November
30, 2020 and July 23, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until October 4, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the Company received a letter from the [U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA")] stating that, as part of their ongoing
review of the [sulopenem New Drug Application "NDA"], the agency
has identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the
discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments
at this time."
On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.87 per share,
or 37.99%, to close at $1.42 per share on July 2, 2021.
Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing
that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for
the sulopenem NDA, "provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its
review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA
in its present form."
On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.499 per share,
or 44.16%, to close at $0.631 per share on July 26, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the sulopenem ("NDA") lacked sufficient data to support
approval for the treatment of adult women with uncomplicated
urinary tract infections ("uUTIs") caused by designated susceptible
microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible
to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA
would approve the sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii)
defendants downplayed the severity of issued and deficiencies
associated with the sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Iterum 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]
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Iterum Therapeutics plc ("Iterum" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ITRM) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 21-cv-04181, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Iterum securities
between November 30, 2020 and July 23, 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 or otherwise acquired Iterum
securities during the Class Period, you have until October 4, 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.
Iterum is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company that engages in
developing anti-infectives for multi-drug resistant pathogens in
Ireland and the United States. The Company is developing sulopenem,
a novel anti-infective compound with oral and intravenous
formulations that is in Phase III clinical trials for the treatment
of, among other medical issues, uncomplicated urinary tract
infections ("uUTIs").
In November 2020, Iterum submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA")
to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for sulopenem
etzadroxil/probenecid (oral sulopenem) for the treatment of uUTIs
in patients with a quinolone non-susceptible pathogen (the
"sulopenem NDA").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the sulopenem NDA lacked
sufficient data to support approval for the treatment of adult
women with uUTIs caused by designated susceptible microorganisms
proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible to a quinolone;
(ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the
sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii) Defendants downplayed the
severity of issues and deficiencies associated with the sulopenem
NDA; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On July 1, 2021, Iterum issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the Company received a letter from the [FDA] stating that, as part
of their ongoing review of the [sulopenem NDA], the agency has
identified deficiencies that preclude the continuation of the
discussion of labeling and post marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." The press release further stated that "[n]o details
with respect to deficiencies were disclosed by the FDA in this
notification and the letter further states that the notification
does not reflect a final decision on the information under
review."
On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.87 per share,
or 37.99%, to close at $1.42 per share on July 2, 2021.
Then, on July 26, 2021, Iterum issued a press release announcing
that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA for
the sulopenem NDA, "provid[ing] that the FDA has completed its
review of the NDA and has determined that it cannot approve the NDA
in its present form." Specifically, "the FDA determined that
additional data are necessary to support approval for the treatment
of adult women with [uUTIs] caused by designated susceptible
microorganisms proven or strongly suspected to be non-susceptible
to a quinolone[,]" while "recommend[ing] that Iterum conduct at
least one additional adequate and well-controlled clinical trial,
potentially using a different comparator drug[,]" and "conduct
further nonclinical investigation to determine the optimal dosing
regimen . . . ."
On this news, Iterum's ordinary share price fell $0.499 per share,
or 44.16%, to close at $0.631 per share on July 26, 2021.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, 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, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz 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]
JAMES HARDIE: Leaky Home Class Action Settled Mid-Trial
-------------------------------------------------------
RNZ reports that the decades-long leaky home saga involving
cladding manufacturer James Hardie has been settled mid-trial.
More than 1000 people were collectively seeking more than $200
million in a court battle against the James Hardie group of
companies, in a mammoth trial that began before the High Court at
Auckland in May 2021.
As part of the settlement, James Hardie will receive a payment of
$1.25m.
In a statement to the ASX, country manager John Arneil said: "While
we are happy with this outcome, and believe the settlement supports
our continued belief that the allegations lacked merit and we
behaved as a responsible manufacturer, we remain very sympathetic
to homeowners negatively impacted by weather tightness issues."
The settlement was not confidential and the key terms included
Harbour Litigation Funding paying James Hardie $1.25m, no admission
of liability by any party, along with full and final settlement of
all claims arising directly or indirectly out of the class action.
There are two other outstanding weather tightness claims against
the firm. [GN]
JANUS HENDERSON: Voluntarily Dismissed from VelocityShares Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the plaintiffs in Set
Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al. voluntarily
dismissed all Janus entities from the suit without prejudice,
subject to a one-year tolling agreement between the parties,
thereby resolving the litigation.
On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against a
subsidiary of the company (JHG), Janus Index & Calculation Services
LLC, which, effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson
Indices LLC ("Janus Indices"), on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term
ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018, and February 5, 2018
(Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). Credit Suisse AG
("Credit Suisse"), the issuer of the XIV notes, was also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs generally alleged statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") was calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.
On May 4, 2018, an additional class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse in the
SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The Qiu
allegations generally copied the allegations in the Eisenberg
case.
On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which were consolidated in the SDNY under the name
Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding Janus
Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson Distributors,
and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding allegations of
market manipulation by all of the defendants.
The Janus Henderson Group plc and Credit Suisse defendants moved to
dismiss the Set Capital amended complaint, and on September 25,
2019, the court dismissed all claims against all defendants.
The court denied the plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to
further amend their complaint and dismissed the case in its
entirety. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On April 27, 2021, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all
claims against the Janus defendants except for one claim that it
held the district court did not address and remanded to the
district court for further proceedings.
On June 30, 2021, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all Janus
entities from the suit without prejudice, subject to a one-year
tolling agreement between the parties, thereby resolving the
litigation.
Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.
JIMMY JOHN'S: Workers' Class Action Bid Denied, No-Poaching Agreed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Jimmy John's
LLC dodged a bid for class action status in a federal court in
Illinois by the employees leading an antitrust challenge to a "no
poach" agreement that previously prohibited the sandwich chain's
franchise locations from recruiting one another's workers.
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel declined to certify the case as a class
action July 30, citing reasons similar to those offered by the
federal judge in Chicago who ruled against McDonald's Corp. workers
in a similar case two days earlier.
"Given the varied and dynamic labor markets across the country" --
plus employee waivers, conflicting choices by different managers,
and . . . [GN]
KANZHUN LTD: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Sept. 10 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Aug. 2
announced the filing of class action lawsuit against Kanzhun Ltd.
("Kanzhun" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BZ) and certain of its
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws. If you purchased Kanzhun American Depository Shares ("ADSs")
between June 11, 2021 and July 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Joe
Pettigrew at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com or 844-818-6982 for more
information.
Kanzhun operates an online recruitment platform, BOSS Zhipin, which
is a mobile-native product that promotes instant direct chats
between employers and job seekers, delivers matching results, and
is powered by proprietary artificial intelligence algorithms and
big data insights.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Kanzhun would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the Cybersecurity Administration of China ("CAC"); (2)
the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new user registration on
its BOSS Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed to "to conduct a
comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks"; (4) Kanzhun
needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and technology
capabilities;" 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.
On July 5, 2021, the Company issued a press release stating that it
would have to suspend new user registration while the Cybersecurity
Administration of China conducted a cybersecurity review of
Kanzhun's BOSS Zhipin app.
On this news, Kanzhun's ADSs fell $5.79 per ADS, or over 15%, to
close at $30.52 per ADS on July 6, 2021.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Kanzhun ADSs between June 11, 2021 and July 2,
2021, and you wish to discuss this lawsuit, please contact attorney
Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982, or at jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
The deadline to file for lead plaintiff is
September 10, 2021.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, Virginia, California,
and Ohio.
Contacts:
Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Ave, 17th Fl, NY, NY 10169
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]
KBR INC: Enforcement of $19MM Award to Former Employees Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the award of $19 million from the
appellate court of Moundou to former employees of the company's
former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. ("SSI"), is
still suspended.
In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. ("SSI"), filed a class action
suit claiming unpaid damages arising from the ESSO Chad Development
Project for Exxon Mobil Corporation dating back to the early 2000s.
Exxon is also named as a defendant in the case.
The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or
around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses.
The Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for
unpaid overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25
million which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI.
The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed
by the Supreme Court of Chad.
The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Chadian Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was filed
and a hearing was held in December 2018.
A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019, the
Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs
approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award.
Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019.
Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21,
2019, and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020. The
plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020, and a
hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020. The hearing was postponed
due to COVID-19 but took place on September 18, 2020.
On October 9, 2020, the appellate court of Moundou awarded the
plaintiffs approximately $19 million. SSI filed an appeal of this
decision to the Chadian Supreme Court on December 28, 2020.
SSI's request for suspension on the enforceability of the award
from the Chadian Supreme Court was granted on January 4, 2021, and
therefore there is no current risk of enforcement of the judgment.
KBR said, "At this time, we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter. SSI is no longer an existing
entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any
amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this
adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the
applicable contract."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based
in Houston, Texas.
KCI USA: Seeks Denial of Palmer Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE PALMER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. KCI
USA, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-03084-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order denying class certification and
order any and all such relief as is deemed fair and just.
On her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class, the Plaintiff
Palmer claims that Defendant KCI called her cellular telephone
number using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) or a
prerecorded voice without her consent.
The Plaintiff alleges that KCI was "calling the wrong person" in
early 2019. She seeks to represent a class of unintended call
recipients (i.e., wrong number calls) who received a call from KCI
by using an ATDS or prerecorded voice within four years from filing
the Complaint.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 28, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ys1W9E at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric Larson Zalud, Esq.
Thomas O. Crist, Esq.
David M. Krueger, Esq.
Mark S. Eisen, Esq.
Laura E. Kogan, Esq.
BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER
COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2300
Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Telephone: (216) 363-4500
Facsimile: (216) 363-4588
E-mail: ezalud@beneschlaw.com
tcrist@beneschlaw.com
dkrueger@beneschlaw.com
meisen@beneschlaw.com
lkogan@beneschlaw.com
- and -
Craig A. Knickrehm, Esq.
Jonathan M. Brown, Esq.
WALENTINE O'TOOLE, LLP
11240 Davenport Street
P.O. Box 540125
Omaha, NE 68154-0125
Telephone: (402) 330-6300
Facsimile: (402) 330-6303
E-mail: cknickrehm@walentineotoole.com
jbrown@walentineotoole.com
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Settlement in Indirect Purchasers Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement in the indirect purchaser class.
Beginning in March 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on
behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig Green
Mountain, Inc.'s (KGM's) products in various federal district
courts.
In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the
"Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").
Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed in July 2014.
An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas
(Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was
transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation in November
2015.
In January 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against KGM
(McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the SDNY
asserting similar claims and also was transferred into the
Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. These actions are now pending
in the SDNY (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee
Antitrust Litigation). Discovery in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation commenced in December 2017.
Separately, a statement of claim was filed in September 2014
against KGM and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club
Coffee L.P., a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods,
asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading
statements by Keurig.
In July 2020, KGM reached an agreement with the putative indirect
purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31
million.
The settlement class consists of individuals and entities in the
United States that purchased, from persons other than KGM and not
for purposes of resale, KGM manufactured or licensed single serve
beverage portion packs during the applicable class period
(beginning in September 2010 for most states). The court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in December 2020, and the
Company paid the settlement amount in January 2021. Final approval
of the settlement was granted by the court in June 2021.
KDP intends to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuits brought by
Treehouse, JBR, McLane, the putative direct purchaser class and
Club Coffee.
Keurig Dr Pepper said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range
of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits
or any potential effect they may have on the Company or its
operations."
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty
coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other
beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands;
coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional
packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr
Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V.
LOUISIANA: Settlement in Perry Suit Gets Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PERRY, on their
behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners,
v. DARREL VANNOY, Warden of Angola; BURL CAIN, former Warden of
Angola; JAMES CRUZE, Warden of Death Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy
Warden of Security; and JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Public Safety Corrections, Case No.
3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick
entered an order:
1. granting the parties' joint motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement; and
2. granting class certification for settlement purposes;
A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VE3XAY at no extra charge.[CC]
LOYOLA MARYMOUNT: Notice of Failure to File Class Cert. Stricken
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bridget McCarthy v. Loyola
Marymount University, Case No. 2:20-cv-04668-SB-JEM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., entered an order striking
the Notice of Plaintiff's Failure to file motion for class
certification filed by the Defendant Loyola Marymount University
without prejudice to refiling in accordance with the Court's
standing order Rule 5b.
The Court said, "Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking
the determination of any matter Shall serve and lodge a proposed
order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief
statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate
citations. Proposed orders should not contain: (1) attorney names,
addresses, etc. on the caption page; (11) a footer with the
document name or other information; or (111) a watermark or
designation of the firm name."
Loyola Marymount is a private Jesuit and Marymount research
university in Los Angeles, California. It is located on the west
side of the city, near Playa Vista.
A copy of the Court's Civil Minutes -- General dated July 28, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jDasfP at no
extra charge.[CC]
LUCKIN COFFEE: Bernstein Litowitz Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action
To: All persons and entities (and their beneficiaries) that
purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depository Shares of
Luckin Coffee Inc. (In Provisional Liquidation) between May 17,
2019 through July 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been provisionally certified to proceed
as a class action on behalf of the Class described above, for
settlement purposes. Please note: at this time, there is no
judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, your rights may be affected. The
Class has been provisionally certified solely for the purpose of
effectuating a potential settlement with Defendant Luckin Coffee
Inc. (In Provisional Liquidation) ("Luckin") in this Action and
pursuant to the relevant legislation under Cayman Islands law,
including but not limited to presenting a scheme of arrangement
under section 86 of the Companies Act (2021 Revision) (referred to
herein as a "Settlement"). More details are provided in the full
Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice"), which is currently
being mailed to known potential Class Members.
If you have not yet received the full printed Notice, you may
obtain a copy of the Notice by downloading it from
www.LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the
Notice Administrator by toll-free phone at 1-855-535-1824, by email
at info@LuckinCoffeeSecuritiesLitigation.com, or in writing at:
In re Luckin Coffee Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq
P.O. Box 5887
Portland, OR 97228-5887 [GN]
MACROGENICS INC: Hill Securities Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
MacroGenics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit initiated by Todd Hill.
On September 13, 2019, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by
Todd Hill naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Scott Koenig, and its Chief Financial Officer, Mr. James Karrels,
as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading
statements regarding the Company's SOPHIA trial.
On August 17, 2020, the Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge was appointed as Lead
Plaintiff, and on October 16, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.
The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
February 6, 2019 to June 4, 2019. The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss on November 30, 2020.
Plaintiff filed an Opposition brief on January 29, 2021, to which
the Company filed a timely reply.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
MacroGenics said, "However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is
uncertain at this time and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss, if any. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any
liability associated with this action."
MacroGenics, Inc. develops novel biologics. The Company specializes
in treatments for autoimmune disorders, cancer, and infectious
diseases. MacroGenics serves the healthcare industry in the United
States. The company is based in Rockville, Maryland.
MASTERCARD INC: Class Status Bids in ATM Surcharge Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motions for class
certification filed in the ATM Surcharge Fees suits remain
pending.
In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both Mastercard
and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM
operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for
transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").
The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order
in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings.
In September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1
billion in damages against all of the defendants.
Mastercard intends to vigorously defend against both the
plaintiffs' liability and damages claims and has opposed class
certification.
Briefing on class certification is complete.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Oral Argument on Settlement Appeal Set for October
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that oral argument on the
appeal made in the Damage Class, is scheduled for October 2021.
In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against Mastercard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions.
Taken together, the claims in the complaints were generally brought
under both Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibit
monopolization and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize a
particular industry, and some of these complaints contain unfair
competition law claims under state law. The complaints allege,
among other things, that Mastercard, Visa, and certain financial
institutions conspired to set the price of interchange fees,
enacted point of sale acceptance rules (including the no surcharge
rule) in violation of antitrust laws and engaged in unlawful tying
and bundling of certain products and services, resulting in
merchants paying excessive costs for the acceptance of Mastercard
and Visa credit and debit cards. The cases were consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in MDL No. 1720.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint that
seeks treble damages.
In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that Mastercard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the "IPO")
and certain purported agreements entered into between Mastercard
and financial institutions in connection with the IPO: (1) violate
U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent conveyance
because the financial institutions allegedly attempted to release,
without adequate consideration, Mastercard's right to assess them
for Mastercard's litigation liabilities. The class plaintiffs
sought treble damages and injunctive relief including, but not
limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In February 2011, Mastercard and Mastercard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a Mastercard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.
The agreements provide for the apportionment of certain costs and
liabilities which Mastercard, the Visa parties and the financial
institutions may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or settlement of one or all of the merchant
litigation cases.
Among a number of scenarios addressed by the agreements, in the
event of a global settlement involving the Visa parties, the
financial institutions and Mastercard, Mastercard would pay 12% of
the monetary portion of the settlement.
In the event of a settlement involving only Mastercard and the
financial institutions with respect to their issuance of Mastercard
cards, Mastercard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.
In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs.
The settlements included cash payments that were apportioned among
the defendants pursuant to the omnibus judgment sharing and
settlement sharing agreement described above. Mastercard also
agreed to provide class members with a short-term reduction in
default credit interchange rates and to modify certain of its
business practices, including its "no surcharge" rule.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, and objectors to the settlement appealed that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In June 2016, the court of appeals vacated the class action
certification, reversed the settlement approval and sent the case
back to the district court for further proceedings.
The court of appeals' ruling was based primarily on whether the
merchants were adequately represented by counsel in the settlement.
As a result of the appellate court ruling, the district court
divided the merchants' claims into two separate classes - monetary
damages claims (the "Damages Class") and claims seeking changes to
business practices (the "Rules Relief Class"). The court appointed
separate counsel for each class.
In September 2018, the parties to the Damages Class litigation
entered into a class settlement agreement to resolve the Damages
Class claims.
The time period during which Damages Class members were permitted
to opt out of the class settlement agreement ended in July 2019
with merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the Damages
Class interchange volume choosing to opt out of the settlement. The
district court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2019.
The district court's settlement approval order has been appealed
and oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for October 2021.
Mastercard has commenced settlement negotiations with a number of
the opt-out merchants and has reached settlements and/or agreements
in principle to settle a number of these claims.
The Damages Class settlement agreement does not relate to the Rules
Relief Class claims. Separate settlement negotiations with the
Rules Relief Class are ongoing. In December 2020, the Rules Relief
Class filed a motion for class certification.
Briefing on summary judgment motions in the Rules Relief Class and
opt-out merchant cases was completed in December 2020.
As of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, Mastercard had accrued a
liability of $783 million as a reserve for both the Damages Class
litigation and the opt-out merchant cases. As of June 30, 2021 and
December 31, 2020, Mastercard had $586 million in a qualified cash
settlement fund related to the Damages Class litigation and
classified as restricted cash on its consolidated balance sheet.
The reserve as of June 30, 2021 for both the Damages Class
litigation and the opt-out merchants represents Mastercard's best
estimate of its probable liabilities in these matters.
The portion of the accrued liability relating to both the opt-out
merchants and the Damages Class litigation settlement does not
represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the matters were
litigated to a final outcome.
Mastercard cannot estimate the potential liability if that were to
occur.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Parties Directed to Re-brief Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the district court judge
handling the class action suit involving an alleged Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") violation, has instructed the
parties to re-brief the motion for class certification.
Mastercard is a defendant in a TCPA class action pending in
Florida.
The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that
approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").
The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).
In June 2018, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to
stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission
makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax
services.
In December 2019, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying
that the TCPA does not apply to faxes sent to online fax services
that are received via e-mail. As a result of the ruling, the stay
of the litigation was lifted in January 2020.
In January 2021, the magistrate judge serving on the district court
issued an opinion recommending that the district court judge deny
plaintiffs' class certification motion.
In light of an appellate court decision, issued subsequent to the
magistrate's recommendation, the district court judge instructed
the parties to re-brief the motion for class certification, and the
motion has now been fully briefed.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Shift Fraud Liability Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that briefing on summary
judgment in the class action suit involving conspiracy to shift
fraud liability, is expected to occur in 2022.
In March 2016, a proposed U.S. merchant class action complaint was
filed in federal court in California alleging that Mastercard,
Visa, American Express and Discover (the "Network Defendants"),
EMVCo, and a number of issuing banks (the "Bank Defendants")
engaged in a conspiracy to shift fraud liability for card present
transactions from issuing banks to merchants not yet in compliance
with the standards for EMV chip cards in the United States (the
"EMV Liability Shift"), in violation of the Sherman Act and
California law.
Plaintiffs allege damages equal to the value of all chargebacks for
which class members became liable as a result of the EMV Liability
Shift on October 1, 2015.
The plaintiffs seek treble damages, attorney's fees and costs and
an injunction against future violations of governing law, and the
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.
In September 2016, the district court denied the Network
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted such a
motion for EMVCo and the Bank Defendants.
In May 2017, the district court transferred the case to New York so
that discovery could be coordinated with the U.S. merchant class
interchange litigation.
In August 2020, the district court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' request for class certification. In January 2021, the
Network Defendants' request for permission to appeal the district
court's certification decision to the appellate court was denied.
The plaintiffs' have submitted expert reports that allege aggregate
damages in excess of $1 billion against the four Network
Defendants.
The Network Defendants have submitted expert reports rebutting both
liability and damages.
Briefing on summary judgment is expected to occur in 2022.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MAYNE PHARMA: Faces Investor Lawsuit Over Anticompetitive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that Mayne Pharma Group has been hit with an investor class action
lodged in the Supreme Court of Victoria alleging misleading or
deceptive conduct and breaches of continuous disclosure obligations
over alleged anti-competitive conduct in the United States.
The class action was brought by Phi Finney McDonald on behalf of
investors who acquired an interest in the shares of the
Adelaide-based company, and/or American depositary receipts that
represent Mayne shares, between November 24, 2014, and December 15,
2016.
Mayne said in a statement to the ASX that it will vigorously defend
the proceeding.
"Mayne Pharma emphatically denies any and all allegations of
wrongdoing," it added.
This legal action follows the announcement on December 15, 2016,
that the Attorney General of Connecticut had commenced anti-trust
civil proceedings against a number of pharmaceutical companies,
including Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc.
It is alleged in that proceeding that Mayne, along with other
defendants, participated in a conspiracy to restrain trade, inflate
the price of generic pharmaceuticals, and reduce competition.
The market responded strongly to that action, with Mayne's share
price falling around 10 per cent over the following trading days.
According to the statement of claim obtained by The Australian
Financial Review, it alleges that the specialty pharmaceutical
company breached its continuous disclosure obligations, and engaged
in misleading and deceptive conduct, by failing to inform investors
that from late 2014 it had agreed to price-fixing and
market-sharing arrangements with US based competitor Heritage
Pharmaceutical executives.
Since 2014, Heritage and Mayne USA were competitors in the generic
pharmaceutical market for Doxy DR used to treat severe acne in the
US.
It also alleges upon receiving a subpoena from the US Department of
Justice, and later a separate subpoena from the Connecticut
Attorney General, that documents producible in response to those
subpoenas contained information about or referred to the agreement
with Heritage; and consequently, Mayne was reasonably likely to
face civil or criminal action in relation to the Heritage
agreement, with associated reputational damage.
The class action alleges Mayne's share price was inflated by its
disclosure failures, and that shareholders suffered loss and
damage.
The proceeding is being funded by international litigation funder
Vannin Capital.
PFM director Tim Finney said he has reached out to unnamed
institutional investors and there has been substantial support
reflecting their concerns they have about Mayne's alleged
misconduct. [GN]
MCDONALD'S USA: Bids to Certify Class in Deslandes Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEINANI DESLANDES, Plaintiff v. McDONALD'S USA, LLC,
McDONALD'S CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
17 C 4857 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order:
a. denying the Plaintiffs' motions for class certification;
b. denying without prejudice as moot the Defendants' Daubert
motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Singer;
c. denying without prejudice as moot the Defendants' Daubert
motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Capelli;
d. granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file
supplemental expert report; and
e. granting the Defendants' motion to file surreply.
After a hiring restriction prevented Plaintiff Deslandes from
taking a better-paying position with a rival McDonald's outlet, she
filed the suit seeking relief under Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Deslandes and Stephanie
Turner, who filed a related suit (19-cv-5524), move for
certification of a nationwide class of persons who were employed by
a McDonald's restaurant during a five-year period.
Plaintiff Deslandes filed suit against two Defendants. The first
is McDonald's USA, LLC, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
second Defendant, McDonald's Corp. Together, these entities are
the franchisors of the popular restaurants ("McDonald's
restaurants"), with McDonald's Corp. serving as franchisor for
franchise agreements signed until 2005 and McDonald's USA serving
as the franchisor for franchise agreements signed after that time.
Although most (90-95%) of McDonald's restaurants are owned and
operated by franchisees, the rest are operated by McDonald's USA,
LLC and are commonly referred to as McOpCos.
For many years, including at least 1973 to 2017, the franchise
agreement contained a provision that stated: "Franchisee will not
employ or seek to employ any person who is at the time employed by
McDonald's, any of its subsidiaries, or by any person who is at the
time operating a McDonald's restaurant or otherwise induce,
directly or indirectly, such person to leave such employment. This
paragraph 14 will not be violated if such person has left the
employ of any of the foregoing parties for a period in excess of
six months."
The Plaintiffs allege that this provision violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act and suppressed their wages.
In March 2017, McDonald's Corp. announced to the McOpCos and the
franchisees that it would discontinue enforcement of the no-hire
provision. In July 2018, McDonald's Corp. entered an agreement
with the Washington State Attorney General that it would neither
include the hiring provision in future franchise agreements nor
enforce it with respect to the franchise agreements that already
include the provision.
Discussion
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of: "All persons who were
employed at a McDonald's-branded restaurant in the United States
from June 28, 2013 to July 12, 2018." Excluded from the Class are
the Defendants' directors and officers, the Judge, and the Judge's
staff and immediate family members.
A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if
the case falls within at least one of the categories outlined in
Rule 23(b). Rule 23(a) allows "one or more members of a class" to
"sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all class
members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact
common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
Rule 23(b)(3) allows class certification where "the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Rule
23(c)(1)(A) requires that "at an early practicable time after a
person sues or is sued as a class representative, the court must
determine by order whether to certify the action as a class
action." The "party seeking certification bears the burden of
demonstrating that certification is proper by a preponderance of
the evidence."
1. Numerosity
First, Judge Alonso agrees that the number of class members makes
joinder impracticable. The Plaintiffs assert that there are
"hundreds of thousands" of class members. The Defendants say there
are "millions" of class members. Either way, the Judge opines that
the class contains far more members than would be practicable to
join.
2. Common issues and whether they will predominate
Next, Judge Alonso considers whether the Plaintiffs have shown the
existence of one or more common issues and whether such common
questions will predominate over individual questions. The parties
agree that the elements of the Plaintiffs' cause of action are: (1)
a violation of the antitrust laws; (2) injury resulting from the
violation, which is to say that the Plaintiffs suffered antitrust
"impact;" and (3) damages. The parties do not agree, however, on
the proper analysis of the Plaintiff's antitrust claim, so the
Judge must first resolve that issue.
The Judge holds that any given the Plaintiff can establish that the
restraint is anticompetitive only by showing anticompetitive
effects in the relevant market where she sells her labor. Those
markets vary by Plaintiff, which means this is not a question that
can be answered with common evidence. It is simply not a question
that is common to a nationwide class.
Moreover, the Judge finds that the issue of anticompetitive effects
in relevant markets will predominate. He says, it will undoubtedly
be true that in some relevant markets, McDonald's restaurants will
have so many competitors for labor that the restraint will have no
anticompetitive effect. In other markets, McOpCos and franchisees
may have so little outside competition for employees that the
restraint will impact the market. The anticompetitive effects of
the restraint will have to be judged separately for each of the
hundreds (or thousands) of relevant markets, and that will be the
predominant issue, especially if, as the Plaintiffs assert,
antitrust impact is a common question (an issue the Court needs not
address).
In light of the foregoing, the proposed class does not meet the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b).
3. Adequacy
Rule 23(a)'s requirement that "the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," has two
components: The adequacy of the named Plaintiffs and the adequacy
of the proposed class counsel.
Judge Alonso opines that even were it not the case that individual
issues will predominate, he would be hesitant to certify the
proposed class. One unusual aspect of the case is that, while the
Plaintiffs cannot prevail as class, they could lose as one. That
owes to the fact that the counsel for the named Plaintiff made a
strategic decision early in this case not to amend the complaint to
add a claim under the rule of reason. He says, perhaps these
attorneys took a gamble, choosing not to pursue a rule-of-reason
claim in the hopes of the huge reward of certifying a nationwide
class under quick-look analysis. Such a self-interested decision
would not instill confidence that the attorneys would adequately
represent the class.
Additionally, the Judge holds that the case will not proceed as a
class action. He finds that when the Plaintiff filed her
complaint, it "tolled the applicable statute of limitations for all
persons encompassed by the class complaint." Each class member
remains free to pursue his or her own claim.
Conclusion
For all of these reasons, Judge Alonso denied the Plaintiffs'
motions; denied (without prejudice) as moot the Defendants' Daubert
motions to exclude the expert testimonies of Dr. Singer and Dr.
Capelli; granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file
supplemental expert report; and granted the Defendants' motion to
file surreply.
The case is set for status hearing on Oct. 5, 2021, at 9:30 a.m.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/uhxppdj4 from
Leagle.com.
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Class Certification of Brown Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
petition seeking review of the District Court's order granting
class certification in the class action suit initiated by Nathaniel
Brown is still pending.
In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties (and, following the Post
Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney's fees and
costs. In September 2018, the District Court certified a class
proposed by the plaintiff.
Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment.
Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.
In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.
In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments.
The Company also intends to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.
The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals. Management estimates that the Company's
maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and
summary judgment ruling, is $8.4 million, which includes both
potential damages and attorneys' fees but excludes any prejudgment
interest that may be awarded.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily-focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Appeals Class Certification of Cleven Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
petition seeking review of the District Court's order granting
class certification of the lawsuit initiated by Cathi Cleven and
Tara Cleven remains pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the
lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company charged late fees at its Texas
properties that violate Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code,
or Section 92.019, which provides that a landlord may not charge a
tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless, among other
things, the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to
the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result
from the late payment of rent. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs. Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.
In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
Company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.
In September 2019, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
Company's oral arguments.
The Company also intends to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted.
The Company will continue to vigorously defend the action and
pursue such appeals. Management estimates that the Company's
maximum exposure in the lawsuit, given the class certification and
summary judgment fees but excludes any prejudgment interest that
may be awarded.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily-focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.
MISSISSIPPI POWER: Turnage Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi Power Companysaid in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit initiated by Ray C. Turnage, is
pending.
In 2018, Ray C. Turnage and 10 other individual plaintiffs filed a
putative class action complaint against Mississippi Power and the
three then-serving members of the Mississippi PSC in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Mississippi Power received Mississippi PSC approval in 2013 to
charge a mirror construction work in progress (CWIP) rate premised
upon including in its rate base pre-construction and construction
costs for the Kemper IGCC prior to placing the Kemper IGCC into
service.
The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed that approval and ordered
Mississippi Power to refund the amounts paid by customers under the
previously-approved mirror CWIP rate.
The plaintiffs allege that the initial approval process, and the
amount approved, were improper. They also allege that Mississippi
Power underpaid customers by up to $23.5 million in the refund
process by applying an incorrect interest rate.
The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and their
putative class, actual damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, and costs. In
response to Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC each filing a
motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
March 2019.
The amended complaint included four additional plaintiffs and
additional claims for gross negligence, reckless conduct, and
intentional wrongdoing. Mississippi Power and the Mississippi PSC
each filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
occurred in May 2020 and March 2020, respectively.
Also in March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to name
the new members of the Mississippi PSC, the Mississippi Development
Authority, and Southern Company as additional defendants and add a
cause of action against all defendants based on a dormant commerce
clause theory under the U.S. Constitution.
In July 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, which included the same federal claims as
the proposed second amended complaint, as well as several
additional state law claims based on the allegation that
Mississippi Power failed to disclose the annual percentage rate of
interest applicable to refunds.
In November 2020, the court denied each of the plaintiffs' pending
motions and entered final judgment in favor of Mississippi Power.
On January 22, 2021, the court denied further motions by the
plaintiffs to vacate the judgment and to file a revised second
amended complaint.
On February 19, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
An adverse outcome in this proceeding could have a material impact
on Mississippi Power's financial statements.
Mississippi Power Company, headquartered in Gulfport, Mississippi,
is a regulated utility subsidiary of The Souterhern Company, a
utility holding company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss PERS Mississippi Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in securities class action suit headed by the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, is pending.
In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson.
Another lawsuit, which alleged similar facts but also named other
Nielsen officers, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in
September 2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York
in December 2018.
The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class.
The operative complaint was filed on September 27, 2019, and
asserts violations of certain provisions of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false and materially
misleading statements relating to the outlook of Nielsen's Buy
segment (now "Global Connect," which was sold in the first quarter
of 2021), Nielsen's preparedness for changes in global data privacy
laws and Nielsen's reliance on third-party data. Nielsen moved to
dismiss the operative complaint on November 26, 2019.
On January 4, 2021, certain of the allegations against Nielsen and
its officers were dismissed, while others were sustained. Discovery
is ongoing.
In addition, in January 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in New York Supreme Court against a number of Nielsen's
current and former officers and directors.
The derivative lawsuit alleges that the named officers and
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with factual assertions substantially similar to those
in the putative class action complaint.
The derivative lawsuit further alleges that certain officers and
directors engaged in trading Nielsen stock based on material,
nonpublic information.
By agreement dated June 26, 2019, the derivative lawsuit was stayed
pending resolution of Nielsen's motion to dismiss the
aforementioned securities litigation.
An amended complaint was filed on May 7, 2021, which Nielsen moved
to dismiss on July 16, 2021.
Briefing of the motion is ongoing. Nielsen intends to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.
Nielsen said, "Based on currently available information, Nielsen
believes that the Company has meritorious defenses to these actions
and that their resolution is not likely to have a material adverse
effect on Nielsen's business, financial position, or results of
operations."
Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.
NORTHLAND INSURANCE: MSPRC Wins Leave to File 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v.
NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-24176-WILLIAMS/MCALILEY (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Chris
McAliley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint.
For the past several years, Plaintiff MSP Recovery Claims, Series
LLC ("MSPRC") has filed putative class action lawsuits around the
country, in its own name or through one or more of its designated
series entities, against various insurance companies, including the
defendants here, to remedy alleged violations of the Medicare
Secondary Payer Act ("MSP Act"). Many lawsuits often follow a
pattern: MSPRC first files a complaint that lacks specific facts
that support its claims, the insurance company files a motion to
dismiss and MSPRC thereafter amends its complaint, either on its
own initiative or in response to the court's ruling on the motion
to dismiss. The arguments raised at the dismissal stage typically
include, among others, lack of standing and failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This lawsuit
fits that pattern.
The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint against the
Defendants in October 2020 asserting two claims: (1) a private
cause of action under Section 1395y(b)(3)(A) to recover double
damages for the Defendants' alleged failure "to make appropriate
and timely reimbursement of conditional payments for Medicare
Enrollees' accident-related medical expenses" and (2) breach of
contract pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 411.24(e). The Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the Plaintiffs: (i) lack
standing, (ii) fail to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for
relief under the MSP Act, and (iii) fail to plead the elements of a
breach of contract. They further argued that the doctrine of claim
preclusion requires dismissal, and that the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over all but one defendant.
Before the Court ruled on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, on
Feb. 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC") as a matter of course. The FAC raises the same causes of
action as the original complaint but, unlike its predecessor,
alleges eight (8) representative sample claims, which the
Plaintiffs call "exemplars." The Defendants again filed a motion to
dismiss. It mostly makes the same arguments as the prior Motion to
Dismiss, except that the Defendants no longer argue claim
preclusion.
The Plaintiffs thereafter filed the Motion for Leave to Amend now
before the Court, that asks for permission to file a second amended
complaint. The Proposed SAC asserts the same causes of action as
its predecessors, but changes the parties and exemplars. In
particular, it removes MSPA Claims 1, LLC and Series PMPI as
plaintiffs and substitutes MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC. It
also removes two defendants and adds one defendant that corresponds
to new exemplar claims. The Proposed SAC also removes three
exemplars alleged in the FAC, revises the remaining five exemplars,
and adds 17 new exemplars, which results in nearly a three-fold
increase in the number of exemplars alleged.
The Plaintiffs contend that amendment is necessary for two reasons:
First, "to incorporate additional factual allegations regarding
certain exemplar claims" that address arguments the Defendants'
made in their pending Motion to Dismiss, and second, to "directly
address the issues recently raised" by two district court judges
with the Court when they ruled on motions to dismiss in
"substantially similar" cases. They argue that they have not unduly
delayed seeking amendment because the Court had not yet set a
deadline to amend pleadings, and the Defendants will not suffer
prejudice because "the case is in the earliest stages of litigation
as a Scheduling Order has yet to be issued in the case."
The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' Motion, arguing that "it
would be highly unfair, costly, and prejudicial to force them to
bear the substantial cost of investigating and responding to yet
another complaint after the Plaintiffs have failed multiple times
to state a cognizable claim over which the Court has jurisdiction."
They also argue that amendment is improper because the "Plaintiffs
seek to amend with information that they have had for years."
With these arguments in mind, Judge McAliley evaluates the merits
of the Motion.
Analysis
1. Amendment of Exemplars
The Plaintiffs argue that amendment is necessary to conform the FAC
to rulings issued by the Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga in MSP Recovery
Claims Series LLC v. Amerisure Insurance Company, et al.,4 and the
Honorable Darrin P. Gayles in MSP Recovery Series LLC, et al. v.
United Services Automobile Association, et al.,5 on similar motions
to dismiss.
Judge McAliley holds that this assertion is not supported by the
record. He says Judge Altonaga issued her Omnibus Order on the
defendants' motions to dismiss on Feb. 1, 2021, more than a week
before the Plaintiffs filed the FAC. See Amerisure Ins. Co., 2021
WL 358670. The Plaintiffs filed the FAC on a date of their own
choosing -- on Feb. 9, 2021 -- rather than in response to a court
deadline. They had the opportunity, before they filed the FAC, to
consider the impact of Judge Altonaga's Omnibus Order on their
complaint, and thus could have incorporated any necessary changes
at the time they filed the FAC. Rather, the Plaintiffs waited more
than three months after Judge Altonaga's Omnibus Order to seek
leave to amend -- and they offer no justification for this delay.
In sum, Judge MacAliley finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown
that they are entitled to leave to amend. He does recognize,
however, that the Proposed SAC includes revisions to five exemplar
claims alleged in the FAC, and those revisions attempt to address
arguments that Defendants raise in their pending Motion to Dismiss.
For that reason, the Judge permits the Plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint that contains the revisions of the exemplar
claims in the FAC (i.e., exemplar claims of N.W., E.C., E.L., L.M.
and K.P.).
2. Amendment of Parties
The Plaintiffs assert that amendment is necessary to remove MSPA
Claims 1, LLC and Series PMPI as plaintiffs because none of the
exemplar claims alleged in the Proposed SAC involve those entities.
The Defendants do not contend that this revision will result in
undue delay or undue prejudice and the Court deems it permissible.
The Plaintiffs also ask to add MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC
as a party plaintiff because MSPRC assigned to Series 44 certain of
the new exemplar claims that Plaintiffs wish to add to the Proposed
SAC.
The Defendants are correct that this assignment took place before
the Plaintiffs filed the FAC, and the Plaintiffs offer no
justification for waiting several months to make this revision,
Judge McAliley finds. He, however, declines to allow the Plaintiffs
to add this party for a different reason. Plaintiff MSPRC is the
sole assignee of the claims set forth in the five exemplars which
Plaintiff may amend in the SAC. That being so, only MSPRC can have
standing to bring those claims and amendment to add Series 44 as a
party plaintiff would be futile.
In sum, the Judge says the Plaintiffs may file a second amended
complaint that: (i) is limited to exemplars in the FAC that they
want to continue to assert (N.W., E.C., E.L., L.M., and K.P), (ii)
removes MSPA Claims 1, LLC and Series PMPI as party plaintiffs,
(iii) removes Travco Insurance Co. and The Automobile Insurance
Company of Hartford, Connecticut as party defendants, (iv) adds The
Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut as a party defendant and
(v) removes Count II for breach of contract.
The Plaintiffs' arguments support these amendments. The allowed
amendments do not substantially rework the FAC, such that the
Defendants -- should they choose to move to dismiss the SAC --
should be able to easily modify the pending Motion to Dismiss to
address the SAC, without causing undue prejudice to them.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge McAliley grants in part and denies
in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint. He grants them leave, no later than Aug. 11, 2021, to
file a second amended complaint in accordance with the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/rudvsjeb from Leagle.com.
OATLY GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Oatly Group AB ('Oatly' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ:OTLY) from May
20, 2021 through July 15, 2021 (the 'Class Period'). The lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Oatly securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Oatly Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414
or nwiesner@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements to investors during the Class Period.
Specifically, the action alleged that Oatly (a) overinflated its
gross margins, revenue, and capital expenditure financial metrics;
(b) overstated the proprietary nature of its formulas and
manufacturing process; (c) exaggerated its success in China; and
(d) as a result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its
operations, business, and prospects were misleading during the
Class Period.
On this news, Oatly's stock price fell 8.8% over the next two
trading sessions, to close at $19.48 per share on July 15, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Oatly securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/oatlygroupab-421/apply/ or contact
Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information:
Noah Wiesner
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
nwiesner@bernlieb.com[GN]
OATLY GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of shareholders of Oatley Group AB.
Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the
deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the
case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or
obligation to you.
OTLY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form?prid=18296&wire=1
Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ:OTLY)
OTLY Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 20, 2021 -
July 15, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 24, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form?prid=18296&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Oatly
Group AB made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) Oatly overinflated its gross margins,
revenue, capital expenditure, and market share financial metrics;
(b) the Company overstated its sustainability practices and impact;
(c) the Company exaggerated its growth in China; and (c) as a
result of the foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations,
business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard 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]
OATLY GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Oatly class action lawsuit charges Oatly Group AB (NASDAQ:
OTLY) and certain of its top executives and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to
represent purchasers of Oatly American Depository Shares ("ADSs")
between May 20, 2021 and July 15, 2021, inclusive ("Class Period").
The Oatly class action lawsuit (Jochims v. Oatly Group AB, No.
21-cv-06360) was commenced on July 26, 2021 in the Southern
District of New York and is assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.
A similar lawsuit, Bentley v. Oatly Group AB, No. 21-cv-06485, is
also pending in the Southern District of New York.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Oatly class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Oatly class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than September 24, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Oatly class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Oatly overinflated its
gross margins, revenue, capital expenditure, and market share
financial metrics; (ii) Oatly overstated its sustainability
practices and impact; (iii) Oatly exaggerated its growth in China;
and (iv) as a result, Oatly's statements about its operations,
business, and prospects were misleading during the Class Period.
On July 14, 2021, short seller Spruce Point Capital Management
issued a report entitled, "Sour on an Oat-lier Investment."
According to the Oatly class action lawsuit, Spruce Point brought
to light a number of improprieties at Oatly, including improper
accounting practices and greenwashing (making Oatly's product
appear more sustainable than it actually is), among other issues.
Over the next days, a number of media outlets reported on the
Spruce Point report and its allegations about Oatly. On this news,
the price of Oatly ADSs fell nearly 9% over two trading days,
damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Oatly ADSs
during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the Oatly 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 Oatly class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can
select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Oatly class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Oatly 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
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
OATLY GROUP: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of September 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Aug. 3 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
Oatly Group AB ("Oatly") (NASDAQ: OTLY) between May 20, 2021 and
July 15, 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/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form?prid=18165&wire=5
Allegations against OTLY include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) Oatly overinflated its gross margins, revenue, capital
expenditure, and market share financial metrics; (b) the Company
overstated its sustainability practices and impact; (c) the Company
exaggerated its growth in China; and (c) as a result of the
foregoing, Oatly's statements about its operations, business, and
prospects were misleading during the Class Period.
If you suffered a loss in Oatly you have until September 24, 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]
ONTARIO: Makes Legal Bid to Settle Class Action Over Alleged Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Richmond at lfpress.com reports that the province of Ontario
is making a legal bid to pay people who suffered abuse while under
its protection about $3,000 each, an amount many of them already
succeeded in getting a judge to reject.
The province's pitch, filed in legal documents, is part of a rare
legal battle between Ontario and a Toronto law firm on one side and
a group of former Crown wards and a legal clinic on the other.
At stake is compensation for thousands of adults who suffered years
of sexual, physical and emotional abuse in foster, adoptive and
group homes while they were Crown wards - children taken
permanently by the Crown, or province, from their families and care
givers - from 1966 to 2017.
An agreement reached in a class-action lawsuit on behalf of those
adults "is fair and reasonable and provides for meaningful
compensation under a simple, straightforward and claimant-friendly
process," provincial lawyers wrote in a factum to Divisional Court
dated Aug. 3.
The province and Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky are appealing a
decision by Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Pierce who
rejected a settlement in the class-action lawsuit.
Dozens of former Crown wards have described - in legal documents
for the case and to The Free Press - how they suffered years of
sexual, physical and emotional assaults, medical mistreatment,
denial of food and proper clothing, constant ridicule and other
abuse while under the province's protection. They described how
their complaints were rejected by social service workers and
teachers, and led to even more punishment by their caregivers.
Koskie Minsky filed a lawsuit on behalf of former wards in 2012,
seeking $100 million in damages for neglect and $10 million in
punitive damages. It's common for lawsuits in Canada to get much
less than originally sought.
Koskie Minsky and the province reached a settlement in January for
$10 million, which would work out to an average of about $3,000 a
plaintiff. At a hearing in May about the settlement, 60 former
Crown wards, some of them weeping, objected to the deal, saying it
wasn't enough compensation for the abuse they suffered.
Justice Pierce agreed with the objectors, calling the settlement a
"capitulation" to the province in a case that was about
compensating people for their suffering.
That gave Koskie Minsky and the province the option of
renegotiating the deal, or appealing the ruling.
Koskie Minsky already has sought leave to appeal the decision to
Divisional Court, saying the lawsuit was never about seeking
compensation from the province for the abuse suffered by Crown
wards, but the province's failure to help former wards seek
compensation for abuse through individual lawsuits or the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board.
In its notice seeking leave to appeal, the province also says
Pierce's decision was incorrect, "premised on a misapprehension of
the scope of the action and the settlement, and is based in
significant part on submissions from objecting class members in
which they recounted experiences and allegations that were outside
the scope of this action and were not in evidence."
Children's Aid Societies, not the province, were responsible to
ensure Crown wards were treated properly, the province says in its
factum.
Dozens of former Crown wards who objected to the settlement and
dozens who contacted The London Free Press say they were led to
believe all along the lawsuit was seeking direct compensation.
With the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board now defunct and
considering the challenges and expenses of launching individual
lawsuits, the class-action lawsuit is the last chance for proper
compensation for what they suffered, they say.
"Both of those options are not options for a large percentage of
wards," one former Crown ward wrote to The Free Press recently. "As
the lawyers are well aware the (compensation board) no longer
exists. The idea of a civil action being an option for many is not
an option due to multiple reasons. Some reasons may be: The CAS
didn't keep accurate records; if there are records they were
usually handwritten and impossible to read; the perpetrators have
died or their whereabouts are unknown; there isn't any physical
evidence, in many cases because no one obtained any evidence."
Many objectors to the settlement have sought help from the Class
Action Clinic, a legal clinic based in Windsor that advocates for
and helps people represented by class-action lawsuits.
Clinic director Jasminka Kalajdzic, also an associate professor at
the University of Windsor's law school, says rejection of a
settlement is rare, and an appeal of that rejection is rarer
still.
The clinic will seek standing if the matter gets the Divisional
Court "to argue why the judge did not err in her decision to reject
the settlement," she said. [GN]
PBF ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Goldstein Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's Motion to
Dismiss/Strike the third amended complaint in Arnold Goldstein, et
al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is pending.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF LLC, and its subsidiaries,
PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the
manager of the company's Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil
were named as defendants in a class action and representative
action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas,
Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, ExxonMobil retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs' added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.
On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
court took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the court
issued an order denying class certification.
On April 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. On May 3,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District Court for
Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted plaintiffs' motion. The company
filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019. The
plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October 15,
2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and
named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions.
On February 5, 2021, the company's motion for Limited Extension of
Discovery Cut-Off and a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint were heard by the court. On February 9,
2021, the court issued an order taking both motions under
submission pending additional discovery and briefing related to
plaintiff Youssef and whether a new class representative should be
substituted.
The court has also ordered that the rebuttal expert disclosure
deadline, the expert discovery cut-off, the motion hearing cut-off,
and all other case deadlines be stayed pending the court's decision
as to whether the case can proceed with a new class representative
and whether defendants will be permitted to conduct additional soil
vapor sampling in the ground subclass area.
On March 6, 2021, plaintiff Youssef's second deposition was taken.
On March 22, 2021, based on plaintiff Youssef's deposition, the
company's filed its brief requesting the court dismiss plaintiff
Youssef's claims for nuisance and trespass and deny plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to substitute a
new named plaintiff or class representative.
On April 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a brief regarding their motion.
On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef.
On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint
(TAC) that contained significant changes and new claims, including
individual claims, that were not included in the motion for leave
to amend plaintiffs presented to the Court.
On June 9, 2021, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the
TAC. On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
company's Motion to Dismiss/Strike, to which the company filed its
reply on July 2, 2021.
The current discovery cut off related to Navarro is August 20, 2021
and the company had served interrogatories and requests for
documents on plaintiffs. There is currently no pending hearing date
for the Motion to Dismiss or a trial date.
PBF said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows."
PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PLAID INC: Settles Unfair Business Practices Class Action for $58M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Penny Crosman at americanbanker.com reports that Plaid has settled
a class-action lawsuit in which consumers alleged that the company
used dubious tactics to gather bank account data to share with
fintech clients. Under the terms of the agreement, the San
Francisco data aggregator has agreed to establish a $58 million
settlement fund and make changes to its business practices and
policies.
This settlement encompasses five class-action lawsuits that were
combined into one. All alleged that Plaid used consumers' banking
login credentials to harvest and sell detailed financial data
without the users' consent.
The settlement affects an estimated 98 million people for whom
Plaid screen-scraped data from a bank account to be fed into a
fintech app like Venmo. After the lawyers are paid, if all 98
million people file a claim, they will get about 60 cents each. (In
these types of settlements, typically not everyone makes a claim.
However, in this case they will be given the option of receiving
the settlement money automatically through Venmo and PayPal rather
than strictly through a check, which could result in more claims.)
[GN]
POSTAL FLEET: Federman & Sherwood Discloses Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood, a boutique class-action litigation law firm
has filed a nationwide class action in federal court on behalf of
truck drivers and employees who worked for Postal Fleet Services,
Inc., The Stageline Company, Inc., or Vilano Employment Services,
Inc., and did not get paid for their work. Federman & Sherwood is
trying to recover for wages that were withheld or not paid, or for
overtime work that was not paid.
If you were a driver or employee for one of the defendants or have
information about the defendants not paying their employees, please
contact Lauren Martin at lbm@federmanlaw.com or visit our firm's
website at www.federmanlaw.com. [GN]
POSTMATES LLC: Files U.S. Supreme Court Petition in PAGA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that you will not see
the words "mass arbitration" mentioned in a U.S. Supreme Court
petition filed by the delivery service Postmates LLC, which wants
the justices to decide whether mandatory arbitration provisions in
the company's contracts with its couriers encompass claims brought
under California's Private Attorneys General Act.
But it's a good bet that Postmates' lawyers at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher are thinking about the petition as part of a broader
effort by defendants to regain leverage they've lost in a surge of
demands for arbitration by individual workers.
And what's especially interesting about the Postmates petition,
according to mass arbitration expert Maria Glover of Georgetown
University Law Center, is that Postmates seems willing to give up a
short-term tactic -- using class action settlements to ward off
mass arbitration -- for the longer-term goal of averting workers'
claims.
This story has a lot of strands. Let's start with PAGA. As you
know, California's law allows individual employees to bring claims
on behalf of the state's Labor and Workforce Development Agency. In
2014, California's Supreme Court ruled in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles LLC that defendants cannot compel
arbitration of workers' PAGA claims, even if workers have otherwise
agreed to waive class action rights and arbitrate their individual
demands. Ever since that ruling, defendants have been fighting, to
no avail, to overturn the Iskanian rule, including more than a
half-dozen failed attempts at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
and the U.S. Supreme Court.
They're still trying. Postmates is actually the third PAGA
defendant since last May to file a petition with the Supreme Court.
Companies' latest contention, as I told you in June, is that the
Supreme Court's 2016 ruling in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis
undermines Iskanian's rationale.
The justices, who have heretofore rejected all defense pleas to
take up the PAGA issue, showed a bit of interest last month,
requesting a response from employees to a petition by Viking River
Cruises Inc. The workers' response is due on Aug. 12.
Postmates argued in its new Supreme Court petition that it tried
and failed to compel individual arbitration of a PAGA claim by
courier Jacob Rimler. By allowing Rimler to litigate the PAGA claim
alleging labor law violations involving thousands of workers,
Postmates said, the court effectively sidestepped the company's
contractual class waiver requirement.
Postmates did not tell the Supreme Court that it tried to turn its
failure to compel arbitration in the PAGA case to its advantage. In
2019, facing an onslaught of arbitration demands by individual
couriers (and millions of dollars in arbitration fees), Postmates
reached a proposed class action settlement, via the PAGA case, of
an array of workers' claims. The law firm orchestrating the mass
arbitration campaign against Postmates, Keller Lenkner, accused the
company at the time of using the proposed PAGA settlement to shut
down individual arbitrations. Keller Lenkner said its arbitration
clients might end up stuck in the class action because of the
deal's onerous opt-out requirements -- and pointed out that
Postmates was trying to capitalize on the very same procedural
device they forced workers to waive the right to use.
Postmates and prospective class counsel Shannon Liss-Riordan of
Lichten & Liss-Riordan revised the class action proposal to make it
easier for workers to opt out through their lawyers. A state court
judge nevertheless denied approval of the original settlement
proposal in June 2020.
In December, Postmates and Liss-Riordan submitted a new settlement
proposal, bumping the classwide deal up to $32 million, including
$4 million for the PAGA claims at the heart of the case. San
Francisco Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos said in a July 23
order that she would grant preliminary approval to the $32 million
class settlement.
Postmates didn't mention the settlement in its Supreme Court
petition. Liss-Riordan said in an email that the Supreme Court
should turn down the case because it's already settled. I sent
Postmates counsel Theane Evangelis of Gibson Dunn a detailed email
asking about the settlement and whether the Supreme Court petition
could reduce defendants' flexibility in using class actions to
avert mass arbitration.
She sent me an email statement: "Our petition asks the Supreme
Court to reiterate that agreements to arbitrate must be enforced
according to their terms, including those providing for one-on-one
arbitration."
In one sense, Postmates is asking the Supreme Court to shut down an
option for companies facing mass arbitration. After all, it's
trying to use a PAGA settlement to resolve its exposure to
potential claims by thousands of workers who haven't already sought
arbitration. Without a PAGA case in court, according to Georgetown
professor Glover, Postmates would have had a hard time reaching a
classwide settlement. So if the company's lawyers were to persuade
the Supreme Court to compel arbitration of individual PAGA claims,
other defendants couldn't try to avert mass arbitration with class
deals.
On the other hand, noted Glover, who is wrapping up the first major
academic study of mass arbitration, judges haven't been too keen on
class action settlements designed to avert mass arbitration. It's
not much of a sacrifice to give up a controversial tactic that's
also not effective.
In the meantime, Glover said, companies are redrafting arbitration
provisions to make it harder procedurally for workers to engage in
mass arbitration campaigns. They're also toying with provisions
that would leave room for class action settlements, she said. Some
of those provisions would give either companies or workers a right
to opt for class actions instead of arbitration, but others only
allow flexibility for the company.
These revised arbitration clauses may well face unconscionability
challenges, Glover said, but companies' long-term strategy is to
squelch workers' ability to leverage their claims by banding
together, whether it's in class actions or mass arbitration.
In that context, she said, it's not surprising that Postmates is
asking the Supreme Court to force PAGA claims into individual
arbitration. [GN]
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Rozo Appeals Ruling in Favor of Principal Life
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court's ruling
finding in favor of Principal Life has been appealed.
On November 12, 2014, Frederick Rozo filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and the company.
The company was later dismissed as a defendant. The Plaintiff
alleged that defendants breached fiduciary duties and engaged in
prohibited transactions under ERISA in connection with a general
account guaranteed product known as the Principal Fixed Income
Option ("PFIO").
On May 12, 2017, the district court certified a nationwide class of
participants and beneficiaries who had funds invested in one of the
PFIO contracts.
On September 25, 2018, the district court granted Principal Life's
motion for summary judgment.
On February 3, 2020, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
that ruling and remanded the case back to the district court. A
bench trial was held before the district court November 3-10, 2020.
The court issued its ruling on April 8, 2021, and found in favor of
Principal Life on all claims.
The Plaintiff has appealed this ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals.
Principal Life will continue to aggressively defend the case.
Principal Financial Group, Inc., is a global investment management
company offering retirement services, insurance solutions and asset
management. The company is based in Des Moines, Iowa.
RAVI ZACHARIAS: Misled Donors, Class Action Lawsuit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Smietana at religionnews.com reports that donors to Ravi
Zacharias International Ministries - including an NFL player - are
suing the troubled nonprofit for allegedly covering up its
founder's abusive behavior.
A complaint in federal court for the North District of Georgia
alleges donors to RZIM were told Ravi Zacharias, the group's
founder, was a trustworthy Christian apologist and their donations
would be used to promote "Christian evangelism, apologetic defense
of Christianity, and humanitarian efforts."
But those donors were misled, according to the suit.
"Defendants bilked tens - if not hundreds - of millions of dollars
from well-meaning donors who believed RZIM and Zacharias to be
faith-filled Christian leaders," the plaintiffs allege. "In fact,
Zacharias was a prolific sexual predator who used his ministry and
RZIM funds to perpetrate sexual and spiritual abuse against
women."
Zacharias, who died of cancer in 2020, was a legendary Christian
apologist, who traveled the world defending the Christian faith.
His books on apologetics were cited by celebrity pastors and
politicians. Former Vice President Mike Pence and college football
star turned Christian celebrity Tim Tebow spoke at his funeral.
Not long after Zacharias' death, allegations of serious sexual
abuse surfaced.
RELATED: Report: Ravi Zacharias was guilty of sexual abuse. RZIM
board apologizes.
The lawsuit is built largely on the findings of a 2021 report
commissioned by RZIM, which detailed a pattern of sexual abuse by
Zacharias.
The abuse included groping workers at a spa he co-owned and asking
them to massage his genitals and then praying for them.
The report also found Zacharias had explicit photos of women on his
cellphone and he used ministry funds to pay for massages during his
travels.
RZIM leaders had been aware of alleged misconduct by Zacharias
since at least 2017.
That year, Lori Anne Thompson, a Canadian supporter of RZIM,
accused Zacharias of spiritual abuse and sexting, alleging he had
groomed her by pretending to minister to her and then asked her for
nude photos and engaged her in explicit online conversation.
Zacharias denied the allegations and sued Thompson and her husband.
The suit was later settled, with Zacharias paying $250,000 and
requiring the Thompsons to sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The class-action suit alleges RZIM's board failed to properly
investigate Thompson's allegations. By failing to do so, the board
allowed Zacharias' abusive behavior to continue. The complaint
cites a 2021 letter from RZIM's board of directors, in which RZIM's
leaders admit they failed to hold Zacharias accountable and failed
by not conducting an investigation into Thompson's allegations.
"RZIM's actions and failure to respond appropriately to reports of
Zacharias's sexual misconduct furthered the public deception that
Zacharias was a faith-filled, moral, and upstanding Christian
leader. RZIM's acts and omissions further allowed Zacharias to
continue sexually abusing women under the cover of Christian
ministry and permitted Zacharias's ongoing, deceptive fundraising
efforts for RZIM," the complaint alleges.
RZIM did not immediately respond to requests for comments.
Thompson told Religion News Service she was not aware the lawsuit
was being filed and had no connection to it. She told RNS she
believed RZIM's leaders had breached public trust and the board
should be held accountable.
As a result, donors "funded ongoing misconduct and abysmal lack of
oversight."
"Ravi Zacharias was a public defender of the faith, who denied that
faith by his private predatory actions. The RZIM board of directors
were mandated as overseers of the individual conduct of RZ and the
institutional conduct of RZIM," she told RNS in a text message.
"The board of directors abdicated this role and responsibility - a
breach of public trust. It is just that they, and the estate of the
late Zacharias, be held accountable by civil action."
A pair of donors, Derek and Dora Carrier of Nevada, are named as
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The couple donated $30,000 to RZIM in
January 2020. They did so after listening to Zacharias for years,
which the complaint said led them to believe in RZIM's mission.
Derek Carrier is a tight end for the Las Vegas Raiders.
"In late 2019 and early 2020, Plaintiffs carefully and prayerfully
considered which ministries would receive their yearly tithe, or a
portion thereof, and they readily accepted the call to provide
financial support to Zacharias and RZIM," the complaint states.
The complaint defines all donors - except for RZIM employees and
others with direct ties to the group - who gave to Zacharias or
RZIM from 2004 to Feb. 9, 2021, as being part of the class.
In February 2021, RZIM announced it would no longer accept
donations. The nonprofit has also said it will stop doing
apologetics work and will give donations to other Christian
charities that do evangelism and support abuse victims.
It is unclear whether or not RZIM has begun to make donations to
other ministries. The nonprofit had $36.8 million in net assets as
of 2019, according to Ministry Watch. RZIM has laid off staff and
closed down some of its international offices in recent months.
RZIM's board hired Guidepost Solutions to review its culture and
practices earlier this year. The results of that review have not
been made public.
Brad R. Sohn, an attorney for the Carriers, said his firm has
already heard from other donors who are interesting in joining the
suit.
He said his clients, like many other donors, trusted Zacharias and
other RZIM leaders, and that trust was betrayed. Sohn said his
clients no longer believe RZIM is trustworthy and want their
donations returned.
More than that, he said, the Carriers want all donors to be treated
fairly.
"They could have picked up the phone and asked to have their money
back," he said. "But it's not just about them."
Sohn is skeptical of claims made by RZIM leaders that they have
learned from their mistakes and that they will give the
organization's assets away. He said RZIM has had months to contact
donors and return donations but failed to do so.
"Actions speak louder than words," he said.
This is a developing story and will be updated. [GN]
RECKITT BENCKISER: Settles Class Action Over False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Schiff Move Free(R) Advanced, Move Free(R)
Advanced Plus MSM, or Move Free(R) Advanced Plus MSM & Vitamin D
from May 28, 2015 to June 24, 2021, you may be a "Class Member" and
entitled to receive a cash payment from a class action settlement.
In Yamagata v. Reckitt Benckiser, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the court preliminarily approved the Settlement of a
class action lawsuit involving claims that these Schiff Move
Free(R) Advanced supplements were falsely advertised. The defendant
in the lawsuit denies these claims.
To determine if you are a Class Member, view the Detailed Notice
and the Settlement Agreement at www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com
or call toll-free 1-855-435-0524.
What can I get? There is a $50 million Settlement Fund. For each
bottle purchased (for purposes other than resale), Class Members
may receive a cash payment of $22. No proof of purchase is required
for claims of up to three units (for a total of $66 in cash). These
award amounts may increase or decrease depending on the number of
claims made and other factors explained in the Settlement
Agreement.
How do I get a cash payment? You must submit a Claim Form to
receive a cash payment. Claim Forms can be submitted online at
www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com or by mail. The deadline to
submit a Claim Form is November 8, 2021.
What are my other options? If you don't want any benefits or to be
legally bound by the Settlement, you must submit an Exclusion
Request postmarked or submitted online at
www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com by October 14, 2021. You may
also write to the Court if you wish to object to the Settlement by
October 14, 2021. The Court will require only substantial
compliance with the requirements for submitting an objection. If
you exclude yourself, then you cannot receive any benefits, but you
do not release any potential rights to sue Reckitt Benckiser LLC
relating to the legal claims in the lawsuit.
The Court will hold a hearing on October 28, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. At
that hearing, the Court will consider whether to approve this
Settlement and whether to approve requested attorneys' fees of 25%
of the Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of costs and requested
Class Representative awards of $500 and $7,500. You may appear at
the hearing, but you don't have to. The Court has appointed
attorneys from the law firm Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP to
represent the Class ("Class Counsel"). You will not be charged for
these lawyers. If you want your own lawyer, you may hire one at
your expense.
If you have any questions, please visit
www.MoveFreeAdvancedSettlement.com or call 1-855-435-0524. [GN]
RENOVACARE INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of September 14 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 14, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare, Inc. ("RenovaCare" or
the "Company") (OTC: RCAR) securities between August 14, 2017
and May 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your RenovaCare 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/renovacare-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 May 28, 2021, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") issued a litigation release stating that
RenovaCare was being charged with alleged securities fraud.
According to the SEC's complaint, between July 2017 and January
2018, the Company's controlling shareholder and Chairman, Harmel
Rayat ("Rayat"), "arranged, and caused RenovaCare to pay for, a
promotional campaign designed to increase the company's stock
price." Specifically, "Rayat was closely involved in directing the
promotion and editing promotional materials, and arranged to funnel
payments to the publisher through consultants to conceal
RenovaCare's involvement in the campaign." When OTC Markets Group,
Inc. requested that RenovaCare explain its relationship to the
promotion, the complaint alleges that "Rayat and RenovaCare then
drafted and issued a press release and a Form 8-K that contained
material misrepresentations and omissions denying Rayat's and the
company's involvement in the promotion."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.66, or 24.8%, over
three consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.00 per share on
June 2, 2021.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, at the direction of Rayat, RenovaCare engaged
in a promotional campaign to issue misleading statements to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price; (2) that, when the
OTC Markets inquired, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially
false and misleading press release claiming that no director,
officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the
purported third party's promotional materials; (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures were defective; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired RenovaCare securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than September
14, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the class action initiated by Ron Miller is still pending.
On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company and three of its former officers, claiming to represent a
class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the period from
January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.
Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the Company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.
After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.
On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019.
On August 30, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Miller Complaint and, on October 4, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss.
There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on February 12,
2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.
ROHR INC: Bid for Class Certification Continued to August 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an
individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation;
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, a corporation, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS
d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel
entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is continued
from August 2, 2021 to August 13, 2021;
2. Plaintiffs are granted a 5-page extension for Plaintiffs'
reply in support of the Motion for Class Certification;
and
3. The hearing on this matter is reset to November 5, 2021 at
1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 2D.
Rohr is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula Vista,
California, south of San Diego.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jJ4biu at no extra charge.[CC]
RYDER SYSTEM: Decision on Bid to Nix Key West Policy Suit Reserved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryder System, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court handling the
case Key West Policy & Fire Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et
al. , held a hearing on defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and reserved
decision.
On May 20, 2020, a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities who purchased or otherwise acquired their
securities between July 23, 2015 and February 13, 2020, inclusive
(Class Period), was commenced against Ryder and certain of its
current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, captioned Key West Policy & Fire
Pension Fund v. Ryder System, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented Ryder's depreciation policy and residual value
estimates for its vehicles during the Class Period in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks to recover, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.
On August 3, 2020, the State of Alaska, Alaska Permanent Fund, the
City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, and
the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund were appointed
lead plaintiffs.
On October 5, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On December 4, 2020, Ryder and the other named defendants in the
case filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 7, 2021, the court held a hearing on defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, and reserved decision.
Ryder System, Inc., commonly known as Ryder, is an American
provider of transportation and supply chain management products,
and is especially known for its fleet of rental trucks. Ryder
specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and
dedicated contracted carriage. The company is based in Miami,
Florida.
SHAMROCK SALOON: Settlement in George Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGHAN GEORGE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SHAMROCK SALOON
II, LLC, d/b/a CALICO JACK'S CANTINA; BLITZ MARKETING, LLC; JOHN L
SULLIVAN; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06663-RA-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah L. Cave
entered an order:
1. granting George's Motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement; and
2. adopting George's proposed schedule of events related to
the Fairness Hearing and will hold the hearing in-person
on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am in Courtroom
18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
The Court hereby adopts the following settlement
procedure:
1. P & N is appointed as the Claims Administrator and
shall be required to perform all of the duties of the
Claims Administrator as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
2. The Court approves the procedures for Class Members to
participate in, opt out of, or object to the
Settlement, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement
and in George's Motion for Preliminary Approval. Class
Members will have 30 days from the date the Notice is
mailed to opt out of the settlement or object to it.
Any Class Member who wishes to speak at the Fairness
Hearing must file a "Notice of Intent to Appear" by the
same date.
3. On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 10:00 am, the Court
will hold the Fairness Hearing to determine whether to
grant final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The
Fairness Hearing will be held at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18A, New York, New York.
4. George shall file a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs
and a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement at least
28 days before the Fairness Hearing, that is, by
Tuesday, October 19, 2021.
5. The Claims Administrator shall file with the Court no
later than 28 days before the Fairness Hearing proof
that Class Notice was provided in accordance with the
Settlement Agreement.
6. The parties shall abide by all terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
George alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by using an automated telephone dialing system
("ATDS") to send promotional text messages to her and others
without their consent. The Honorable Ronnie Abrams has certified a
class of 67,630 individuals (the "Class") to whom the Defendants
sent promotional text messages.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 28, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VHJ8EE at no extra charge.[CC]
T ROWE PRICE: Settlement Reached in 401(k) Plan Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that an agreement in
principle has been reached in the class action suit related to the
company's 401(k) Plan.
On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.
The lawsuit alleges breaches of The Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974's (ERISA's) fiduciary duty and prohibited
transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan from February 14,
2011, to the time of judgment.
The matter has been certified as a class action.
The parties have reached an agreement in principle, which will be
presented to the court for approval.
The proposed settlement would not be material to T. Rowe Price
Group, Inc.
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company-sponsored mutual funds, other sponsored pooled investment
vehicles, sub-advisory services, separate account management,
record-keeping, and related services to individuals, advisors,
institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement plan
sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc. and
T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.
TECHNIPFMC PLC: Settlement in Prause Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
TechnipFMC plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court entered a
final judgment approving the settlement in Prause v. TechnipFMC, et
al., No. 4:17-cv-02368.
A purported shareholder class action filed in 2017 and amended in
January 2018 and captioned Prause v. TechnipFMC, et al., No.
4:17-cv-02368 (S.D. Texas) is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company.
The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's restatement of our first quarter 2017
financial results and a material weakness in our internal control
over financial reporting announced on July 24, 2017.
On January 18, 2019, the District Court dismissed claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The shareholder also asserted a claim for alleged violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act in connection with the reporting
of certain financial results in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed in 2016.
On December 13, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement to settle all claims asserted in the suit with
prejudice.
The Defendants entered into the Stipulation solely to eliminate the
burden, expense, uncertainty and risk of further litigation, and
denied, and continue to deny, each and all of the claims and
contentions alleged by the shareholder plaintiff in this action.
On December 16, 2020, the District Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and ordering notice to the
settlement class.
On March 22, 2021, after a hearing, the Court entered a final
judgment approving the settlement.
TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and gas projects, technologies,
and systems and services businesses. It operates through three
segments: Subsea, Onshore/Offshore, and Surface Technologies. The
company was formerly known as Technip SA and changed its name to
TechnipFMC plc in January 2017. TechnipFMC plc was founded in 1958
and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.
TESLA INC: Settles Model S Owners' Class Action for $1.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Hyatt, writing for RoadShow, reports that way, way back in
2019, we reported on an investigation by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) into some issues that
customers were having with their Tesla Model S batteries.
Specifically, Tesla sent out an over-the-air software update that
was meant to address a problem with the Model S' battery pack, but
it ended up reducing the range of the affected vehicles.
That range reduction was enough to piss off a bunch of Model S
owners enough that they filed a class-action lawsuit which,
according to a report published on July 29 by Reuters, they won.
Not only that, Tesla has agreed to pay out $1.5 million to owners
of affected vehicles, which works out to around $625 per owner.
If that doesn't sound like a lot, it's because it's not. You can
hardly buy a house in Los Angeles for $1.5 million these days, and
to Tesla, it's barely a drop in the bucket. Still, it is likely
satisfying to those affected owners who -- according to Tesla --
had their cars' range restored beginning in March of 2020.
We'd typically reach out to an automaker for a comment on a story
like this, but Tesla dissolved its PR department, so all we can
really do is scream into the void of Twitter at Elon Musk and hope
for a response that we're unlikely to get. It's a bad scene for us
and for consumers. [GN]
TS TECH: Court Enters Initial Pretrial Order in Cruz Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE DELA CRUZ, v. TS
TECH USA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:21-cv-01147-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered preliminary
pretrial order as follows:
-- Initial Disclosures shall be made by AUGUST 16, 2021.
-- Any motion or stipulation to amend the pleadings or to
join additional parties shall be filed by OCTOBER 29,
2021.
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of an
FLSA Collective Action shall be filed by DECEMBER 13,
2021;
-- Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion shall be
filed by JANUARY 21, 2022; and
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Support shall be filed by FEBRUARY 4,
2022.
-- The deadlines for Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion and
Defendant's Decertification Motion shall bev DEFERRED
until after Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, if any, is decided.
-- All conditional certification discovery shall be completed
by JANUARY 14, 2022.
-- Any dispositive motions shall be filed by FORTY-FIVE (45)
DAYS following the completion of all post-certification
discovery.
-- The deadlines for making primary expert designations and
rebuttal expert designations are
DEFERRED until after Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification, if any, is decided.
-- The Defendant intends to seek a protective order or
clawback agreement. Such order or agreement shall be
produced to the Court by AUGUST 27, 2021. If the parties
are unable to reach an agreement on any matter related to
discovery, they are directed to arrange a conference with
the Court.
-- Plaintiff made a settlement demand on JUNE 22, 2021 to
settle named Plaintiff's claims.
-- Defendant will respond by AUGUST 13, 2021. The parties
agree to make a good faith effort to settle this case. The
parties understand that this case will be referred to an
attorney mediator, or to the Magistrate Judge, for a
settlement conference.
The Court refers cases to settlement throughout the year. The
parties are currently engaged in preliminary settlement
negotiations. If the parties' efforts are unsuccessful, the parties
may seek the assistance of the Court and request a settlement
conference following the determination of Plaintiff's anticipated
Motion for Collective Action Certification.
The Plaintiff seeks overtime damages under the FLSA and Ohio state
law for himself and a group of allegedly similarly situated current
and former employees of Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff contends
he and other associates were required to change in and out of their
uniforms and personal protective equipment ("PPE") before and after
their shifts and without compensation. The Plaintiff further
alleges that these actions were integral and indispensable parts of
associates' principal activities and thus compensable.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a putative collective (FLSA) and
class (Ohio law) action. The Defendant denies these allegations and
contends that neither Plaintiff nor any associate of Defendant was
required to change in and out of their uniforms (pants and a shirt)
and PPE prior to clocking in for or after clocking out from their
shifts.
Moreover, Defendant contends that it expressly permits associates
to change in and out of their uniforms at home and that necessary
PPE is located at the production lines associates go to after
clocking in for their shifts. Defendant further contends that the
alleged donning and doffing is also not an integral and
indispensable part of an associate's principal activities. Lastly,
Defendant contends that this case cannot be maintained as a class
or collective action because Plaintiff and those he seeks to
represent are not similarly situated and Plaintiff is not an
appropriate class representative.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 27, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rUZUfM at no extra charge.[CC]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Tosses Race Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Papscun and Erin Mulvaney, writing for BloombergLaw, report
that a class action against Uber Technologies, Inc. filed by
drivers alleging systemic race discrimination based on the app's
customer rating system was dismissed by a California federal judge,
but with the permission to file a new complaint.
The lawsuit doesn't adequately allege facts to support that the
star rating system has a racially disparate impact, nor that the
company intentionally discriminated against the would-be lead
plaintiff, said Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on July 30, granting Uber's
motion to dismiss.
Chhabria acknowledged that plaintiff Thomas Liu's theory is
plausible and will allow the former Uber driver the ability to
refile his lawsuit to plead the disparate impact claims that would
mean the rating system leads to discrimination. He previously gave
Liu the opportunity to file a new complaint after a dismissal in
March.
Liu brought the case against the app-based ride-hailing company in
October on behalf of all non-White drivers nationwide. He alleged
that drivers were fired after customers racially discriminated
against them by giving them unfavorable marks using the app's
built-in driver rating system, a violation of Title VII of the 1964
Civil Rights Act.
Uber prompts customers to rate drivers on a scale of 1 to 5 stars,
and then "deactivates" workers whose average rating it deems
unsatisfactory, according to the lawsuit. Liu says that while
driving for Uber in San Diego, he experienced signs of bias such as
customers canceling when they saw his photograph, or asking in an
unfriendly manner "where he was from." He claims Uber terminated
him in October 2015 because his average customer rating fell below
its minimum of 4.6.
Deciding Who Gets Fired
Liu's attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C.
said the judge appears to be indicating that he will let the
complaint process proceed, but wants to see more work done first on
the front end. She said that actual data analysis can't be done
until discovery begins.
"This is an extremely important case, since Uber and so many gig
companies have been heavily relying on customer ratings to guide
workplace decision-making," Liss-Riordan said. "Employers cannot
abdicate their role to customers to decide which workers get fired
and which get special benefits, given that customer feedback is all
but certain to contain bias."
Attorneys for Uber didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment. A company spokesman previously called the lawsuit
"flimsy."
Liu's class action is just one case in a sea of recent litigation
over the employment status of workers for app-based gig economy
companies like Uber, Lyft Inc., and Grubhub Inc. The companies
argue that their drivers are contractors who aren't covered by
federal civil rights laws.
Liu alleges the level of control Uber exerts over its workers
establishes employee status and therefore civil rights protections,
according to his filing. The lawsuit ultimately seeks an injunction
to stop Uber from using the star rating system to determine driver
terminations and award damages, including back pay for class
members who were terminated due to the rating system.
Sophia Behnia, Andrew Michael Spurchise, and Blair Copple Senesi of
Littler Mendelson P.C., represent Uber. Anne R. Kramer of Lichten
and Liss-Riordan also represent Liu.
The case is Liu v. Uber Technologies, Inc., N.D. Cal., No.
3:20-cv-07499, 7/30/21. [GN]
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Gordon Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion seeking
dismissal of the class action suit entitled, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., remains pending.
In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants. An amended complaint was filed in July
2019.
The amended complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder,
asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November
4, 2015 and February 11, 2019, for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R),
HETLIOZ(R) and the Company's interactions with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regarding tradipitant between November 3, 2015
and February 11, 2019.
In March 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In March 2021, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part.
In April 2021, the Company filed its answer to the amended
complaint.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
Vanda said, "The Company does not anticipate that this litigation
will have a material adverse effect on its business, results of
operations or financial condition. However, this lawsuit is subject
to inherent uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and
the Company may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to
coverage under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a
retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient."
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a
biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the
development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C.
VISA INC: Faces Foreign Currency Related Suit
---------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a class action suit
initiated by cardholders who made a transaction in a foreign
currency.
On July 9, 2021, a class action complaint was filed against Visa in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by
several individuals on behalf of a nationwide class, and/or
California, Washington, or Illinois subclasses, of cardholders who
made a transaction in a foreign currency.
The complaint alleges that Visa sets foreign exchange rates in
violation of Visa's rules and bank cardholder agreements, and
asserts claims for unjust enrichment and restitution as well as
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
Plaintiffs seek an injunction, damages, disgorgement, and
attorneys’ fees among other relief.
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
VISA INC: Faces Lanning and Camp Grounds Coffee Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that the company is facing a class action
suits intiated by Hayley Lanning and Camp Grounds Coffee,
respectively
On April 28, 2021, a complaint was filed by Hayley Lanning and
others, and on June 16, 2021, a complaint was filed by Camp Grounds
Coffee and others, each against Visa and Mastercard on behalf of a
purported class of merchants located in 25 states and the District
of Columbia who have taken payment using the Square card acceptance
service.
The complaints allege violations of the antitrust laws of those
jurisdictions and seek recovery for plaintiffs as indirect
purchasers.
Visa said, "To the extent that those plaintiffs' claims are not
released by the Amended Settlement Agreement, Visa believes they
are covered by the U.S. Retrospective Responsibility Plan."
Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The
company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and
information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions,
businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc.
was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
WELLS FARGO: Commercial Lending Shareholders' Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend two putative securities fraud class actions in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
In October and November 2020, plaintiffs filed two putative
securities fraud class actions in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company
and certain of its former executive officers made false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding, among other things,
the Company's commercial lending underwriting practices, the credit
quality of its commercial credit portfolios, and the value of its
commercial loans, collateralized loan obligations and commercial
mortgage-backed securities.
Wells Fargo & Company, a diversified financial services company,
provides retail, commercial, and corporate banking services to
individuals, businesses, and institutions. The company's Community
Banking segment offers checking and savings accounts; credit and
debit cards; and automobile, student, mortgage, home equity, and
small business loans. Wells Fargo & Company was founded in 1852 and
is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
WESTERN HEALTH: Junior Doctors Join Underpayment Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhiannon Tuffield, writing for news.com.au, reports that dozens of
junior doctors have joined a new class action against a Victorian
public hospital service amid claims the industry is understaffed,
underpaid and patients' lives are being put at risk.
Almost 70 junior doctors working in the Western Health region are
part of the third class action in the state, which was filed in the
Federal Court.
It comes after similar legal action was launched against Peninsula
Health Services and a joint case against Monash Health jointly and
Latrobe Regional Health Service.
The network operates the major Melbourne teaching hospitals at
Sunshine and Footscray.
It comes after half of all junior doctors in a major survey for
Victorian public hospitals admitted to making a clinical error due
to excessive workloads and understaffing.
Dr Gavin Wayne, a third year junior doctor is among those who have
registered in one of the class actions, saying he worked long hours
on busy shifts with few, if any, breaks.
"It is often the case that a 12-hour rostered shift can suddenly
become a 16-hour day when unpaid overtime is added. This is not
unusual and often happens days on end. After three or four days of
this we are working in a haze, mistakes happen, and patients are
put at risk," Dr Wayne said.
"This is no way to run a first world health system, it's not safe
for patients and it's not safe for doctors."
The other class actions were launched earlier this year amid claims
of wage theft and understaffing issues.
More than 1100 junior doctors across Victoria have registered their
interest in joining.
The doctors are claiming repayment for unrostered overtime as well
as penalties against the hospitals for alleged breaches of the Fair
Work Act.
It comes as the latest 2021 Hospital Health Check survey found that
47 per cent of doctors surveyed said they never got paid for
overtime, while others made clinical errors due to fatigue.
The data also found around one in three surveyed had been ignored
when they raised the understaffing issue.
Melbourne ICU registrar Dr Nathan Abraham said junior doctors
worked, on average, 25 hours of overtime a week, with most of it
unpaid.
"The natural impact is we're clearly not getting that rest period,
we're working at a sub-optimal level," he said.
"We're talking about procedures where centimetres matter, precision
and accuracy matters and it will have impacts on patient care.
"Being fatigued, sleep-deprived will obviously have an impact on
those procedures being safe."
He said some doctors feared speaking out and therefore putting
their careers at risk.
"We've tried to talk to government and our healthcare services in a
direct way over a number of years," Dr Abraham said.
"My bosses were dealing with the same issues, we're talking decades
ago.
"It's more with regret and despondency we're taking this step and
also out of desperation, all the ways we've tried to deal with this
haven't resulted in the change we need."
President of AMA Victoria Dr Roderick McRae said there has been an
overwhelming interest in the class actions.
"Our strength is in numbers so we are calling on all junior doctors
to take a stand and register as soon as possible," Dr McRae said.
"The Victorian Government could fix this problem with the stroke of
a pen. We are calling on Health Minister, Martin Foley, to work
with us to strengthen the health network and to provide fair
working conditions for junior doctors."
In a statement, Western Health chief medical officer Dr Paul
Eleftheriou said he was unable to comment on matters before the
courts.
"Western Health greatly values the contributions of all staff,
including our medical workforce, and we have clear processes in
place to ensure our employees are fairly remunerated," Dr
Eleftheriou said.
"The health and wellbeing of our staff is an important priority and
we work actively to address workplace concerns." [GN]
WORLD WRESTLING: Continues to Defend Wrestlers' Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend several class action suits initiated by
its wrestlers.
On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleged that the
Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks
associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's
performers and sought class action status.
On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut.
Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The
plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on
July 27, 2015.
On January 16, 2015, a second lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.
On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to
forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and,
following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the
plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29,
2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its
entirety.
On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.
The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.
On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint, and,
on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
Each of these suits sought unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring. Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.
On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and
as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr.,
and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier,
Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.
A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and
next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a
minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits
contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging
traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries
contributed to these former talents' deaths.
WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on
forum-selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts.
On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and
Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015
and December 21, 2015, respectively. On November 10, 2016, the
Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Frazier and
Osborne lawsuits in their entirety.
On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action
in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham,
Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and
Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers
that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred.
On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously
ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the
motions to dismiss.
On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and
permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving
Singleton and LoGrasso.
Such discovery was completed by June 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016,
the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes,
Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits.
The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and
McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's
motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit
except for the claim of fraud by omission. On March 22, 2016, the
Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the
Court's memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss.
On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration
with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by
omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5,
2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect
to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit.
On July 21, 2016, the Court denied the Company's motion in the
Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and granted in part the Company's motion
in the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April
27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, which motions were granted, and the appeals
were dismissed with leave to appeal upon the resolution of all of
the consolidated cases. The Company filed a motion for summary
judgment on the sole remaining claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso
lawsuit, which was granted on March 28, 2018.
The Company also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
against the Windham defendants.
Lastly, on July 18, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Joseph M.
Laurinaitis, et al. vs. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and
Vincent K. McMahon, individually and as the trustee of certain
trusts. This lawsuit contains many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were misclassified
as independent contractors rather than employees denying them,
among other things, rights and benefits under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), federal tax law,
and various state Worker's Compensation laws.
This lawsuit also alleges that the booking contracts and other
agreements between the plaintiffs and the Company are
unconscionable and should be declared void, entitling the
plaintiffs to certain damages relating to the Company's use of
their intellectual property. The lawsuit alleges claims for
violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO), unjust enrichment, and an accounting against Mr. McMahon.
The Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss and for sanctions with
respect to this complaint on October 19, 2016. On November 9,
2016, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On December 23, 2016, the Company and Mr. McMahon moved to dismiss
and for sanctions with respect to the amended complaint. On
September 29, 2017, the Court issued an order on the motion to
dismiss pending in the Laurinaitis case and on the motion for
judgment on the pleadings pending in the Windham case.
The Court reserved judgment on the pending motions and ordered that
within thirty-five (35) days of the date of the order the
Laurinaitis plaintiffs and the Windham defendants file amended
pleadings that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court further ordered that each of the Laurinaitis plaintiffs
and the Windham defendants submit to the Court for in camera review
affidavits signed and sworn under penalty of perjury setting forth
facts within each plaintiff's or declaratory judgment-defendant's
personal knowledge that form the factual basis of their claim or
defense.
On November 3, 2017, the Laurinaitis plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint.
The Company and Mr. McMahon believed that the second amended
complaint failed to comply with the Court's September 29, 2017
order and otherwise remained legally defective for all of the
reasons set forth in their motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Also on November 3, 2017, the Windham defendants filed a second
answer. On November 17, 2017, the Company and Mr. McMahon filed a
response that, among other things, urged the Court to grant the
motion for judgment on the pleadings against the Windham defendants
and dismiss the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice
and award sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs' counsel
because the amended pleadings failed to comply with the Court's
September 29, 2017 order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On September 17, 2018, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and Mr. McMahon in the Laurinaitis case in its
entirety, awarded sanctions against the Laurinaitis plaintiffs'
counsel, and granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings against the Windham defendants. The plaintiffs attempted
to appeal these decisions.
On November 16, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss all of the
appeals, except for the appeal of the dismissal of the Laurinaitis
case, for being filed untimely. On April 4, 2019, the Second
Circuit issued an order referring the Company's motions to dismiss
to the panel that was going to determine the merits of the appeals.
The plaintiffs-appellants' opening brief was filed on July 8, 2019.
The Company and Mr. McMahon filed their appellees' brief on October
7, 2019. The plaintiffs-appellants filed a reply brief on October
28, 2019. The Second Circuit held oral argument on June 5, 2020. On
September 9, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a summary order,
dismissing the appeals of the sanctions orders and the merits
appeals of the dismissal of all claims in the Haynes, McCullough,
Frazier, and Singleton cases for lack of appellate jurisdiction and
affirming the judgment of the district court on all other claims.
On September 23, 2020, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a petition
for rehearing/rehearing en banc, which was denied on October 15,
2020. On February 24, 2021, the plaintiffs-appellants filed a
petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On
March 26, 2021, the Company filed an opposition to the petition for
writ of certiorari.
On April 26, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs-appellants' petition for writ of certiorari.
WWE said, "The Company believes all claims and threatened claims
against the Company in these various lawsuits were prompted by the
same plaintiffs' lawyer and that all are without merit. The
Company intends to continue to defend itself against any further
attempt to appeal these decisions vigorously."
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
WORLD WRESTLING: Settlement in Kansas FPS Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Court in the
Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas, Missouri suit,
granted final approval of the class action settlement and entered
final judgment.
On March 6, 2020, the Company along with its Chairman and CEO,
Vince McMahon, and former-WWE officers and directors, Michelle
Wilson and George Barrios, were sued in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in a case captioned City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, George A. Barrios, and
Michelle D. Wilson, No. 1:20-cv-02031-JSR.
The complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding WWE's
strategic relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that various public statements
made by the Company and the Individual Defendants were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose certain adverse facts
regarding WWE's strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia that
supposedly was known by them and, as a result, the plaintiff class
allegedly purchased WWE stock at artificially inflated prices.
On March 12, 2020, a nearly-identical lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Paul
Szaniawski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon, George A. Barrios, and Michelle D. Wilson, No.
1:20-cv-02223-JSR.
This lawsuit was filed as related to the City of Warren case and
was assigned to the same judge handling the City of Warren case. By
Order dated May 12, 2020, the City of Warren and Szaniawski
lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes.
After multiple parties filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff
for the putative class in the consolidated action, on May 22, 2020,
the Court issued a memorandum order selecting the Firefighters'
Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri to be lead
plaintiff and their attorneys, Labaton Sucharow LLP, to be lead
counsel for the putative class.
On May 26, 2020, the Company served Rule 11 motion for sanctions on
the attorneys for the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement
System, the attorneys for Paul Szaniawski, and Labaton Sucharow
LLP.
The Rule 11 motion identified false allegations in the originally
filed complaints and was supported by six declarations from Company
executives and third-parties with direct first-hand knowledge of
the matters at issue.
Following service of the Rule 11 motion, the attorneys for the City
of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and the attorneys for
Paul Szaniawski voluntarily dismissed their complaints before the
expiration of the Rule 11 safe-harbor period. On June 8, 2020, the
Firefighters' Pension System of the City of Kansas City, Missouri
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.
On June 26, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety. The Court held oral argument on
the Company's motion to dismiss on July 30, 2020. On August 6,
2020, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
On August 19, 2020, the Court issued a case management plan that,
among other things, scheduled this case to be trial ready on
February 22, 2021. On November 18, 2020, the Company entered into a
term sheet to settle this action, subject to notice to the class
and preliminary and final approval by the Court.
The settlement includes a full release of all Defendants in
connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit, and does not
contain any admission of liability or admission as to the validity
or truth of any or all allegations or claims by any of the
Defendants. The Term Sheet provided for a settlement payment,
subject to Court approval, of $39,000 (inclusive of all Plaintiffs'
attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs), all of which the
Company expects will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers.
The Company believed that resolving the matter is the right
business decision and that it is prudent to end the protracted and
uncertain class action process.
On December 23, 2020, lead plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of settlement with the Court. On March 8,
2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the class action
settlement, and on July 1, 2021, the Court granted final approval
of the class action settlement and entered final judgment.
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., an integrated media and
entertainment company, engages in the sports entertainment business
in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia
Pacific, and Latin America. It operates in three segments: Media,
Live Events, and Consumer Products. The company was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix BolaWrap Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re Wrap Technologies, Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case
No. 20-8760-DMG (PVCx), is pending.
On September 23, 2020, Carone Cobden filed a putative class action
complaint against the Company, former Chief Executive Officer David
Norris, Chief Financial Officer, James A. Barnes, and President,
Thomas Smith in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-08760-DMG-PVCx
(the "Cobden Complaint").
The Cobden Complaint alleges that the named defendants, in their
capacities as officers of the Company, knowingly made false or
misleading statements or omissions regarding trials of the
Company's BolaWrap product conducted by the Los Angeles Police
Department (the "BolaWrap Pilot Program").
The Cobden Complaint also alleges that the conduct of the named
defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's traded
securities, and that the disclosure of certain adverse information
to the public led to a decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The Cobden Complaint further alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and defines the class period as July 31, 2020 through
September 23, 2020.
On October 1, 2020, Joseph Mercurio filed a second putative class
action complaint against the Company, Norris, Smith, and Barnes in
the same court, which contains substantially the same factual
allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Cobden Complaint,
and is docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09030-DMG-PVCx (the "Mercurio
Complaint").
On October 15, 2020, Paula Earley filed a third putative class
action complaint against the Company, Smith, Norris, Barnes, Chief
Strategy Officer Mike Rothans, and former Chief Executive Officer,
Marc Thomas in the same court, which contains many of the same
factual allegations and legal claims as set forth in the Cobden and
Mercurio Complaints, but defines the class period as April 29, 2020
through September 23, 2020, and alleges additional false or
misleading statements in connection with BolaWrap and the BolaWrap
Pilot Program (the "Earley Complaint"). The Earley Complaint is
docketed as Case No. 2-20-cv-09444-DMG-PVCx.
On November 3, 2020, the Hon. Dolly M. Gee consolidated the three
above-mentioned cases under the caption In re Wrap Technologies,
Inc. Securities Exchange Act Litigation, Case No. 20-8760-DMG
(PVCx). On January 7, 2021, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in
the Securities Action, who designated its attorneys as lead
counsel.
On January 21, 2021, Judge Gee ordered that a consolidated amended
complaint be filed in the Securities Action on or before March 12,
2021, with defendants' motion to dismiss to be filed on or before
April 26, 2021, and a hearing on the motion to dismiss to be held
on July 23, 2021.
On March 12, 2021, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
naming the Company, Norris, Thomas, Smith, and Barnes as
defendants.
Those defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss on April 26,
2021.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss is now complete, and the motion
is currently under submission before Judge Gee.
The Company believes that the Securities Action is without merit
and will continue to vigorously defend against the claims raised
therein.
Wrap Technologies, Inc. is a global public safety technology and
services company organized in March 2016 delivering modern policing
solutions to law enforcement and security personnel. The company is
based in Tempe, Arizona.
ZIMMER BIOMET: Settles Employee Class Action Lawsuit for $7.3M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Delmonico at ryortho.com reports that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has issued
an order granting preliminary approval of a class settlement
agreement between a class of independent contractors and Zimmer
Biomet Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries.
The lawsuit originated when a California sales associate sued
Zimmer U.S., Inc., Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, and Biomet
Biologics, LLC. Per the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval
of amended class action settlement agreement, the sales associate
alleged that the companies "unlawfully misclassified California
sales representatives as independent contractors."
The plaintiff's relationship with Zimmer began when he began
selling orthopedic devices to physicians and hospitals in San
Francisco, California. Per his sales associate agreement with
Zimmer, the plaintiff was classified as an independent contractor.
As an independent contractor, he was a member of a sales team in
his region and his team was paid on a commission-only "pooled"
arrangement.
In order to resolve the matter, the parties engaged in settlement
conferences and were able to negotiate a settlement agreement. Per
the order granting preliminary settlement approval, "the proposed
settlement creates a $7,380,482.10 fund to compensate a class of
approximately 246 members."
The proposed settlement will be distributed to the class members on
a "pro-rata basis based upon bi-weekly service pay periods." The
fund will provide "approximately $336 per bi-weekly pay period or
$672 per month." This amount may pale in comparison to Zimmer's
actual potential exposure if the lawsuit proceeded. The plaintiff
asserts that the settlement "represents approximately 15.31% of
Zimmer's total exposure in this suit-estimated at $48,196,516."
In addition to the settlement fund, "class members currently
contracting with Zimmer will also be offered full employment as IRS
form W-2 employees." Reclassification will entitle the employees to
rights and protections under California law that are not available
to independent contractors.
While the court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement,
the order granting preliminary settlement approval called for two
revisions to the employee reclassification section. The first
revision requires that the reclassification section "alert class
members that reclassification is limited to those who have
satisfactory job performance, and, if they have not satisfactorily
performed their job, they will be terminated." The second revision
requires that "sales representatives that make above $300,000 have
the option of retaining their status as independent contractors."
[GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Zymergen Inc. ("Zymergen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ZY) from April 20, 2021 through August 4, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.
If you purchased Zymergen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Zymergen Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877)
779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
The allegations arise out of the misrepresentations made in
Zymergen's Registration Statement for its April 23, 2021 IPO. The
complaint alleges that while the Registration Statement emphasizes
the total addressable market for Hyaline, Zymergen's key product,
it omitted that (1) during the qualification process, key customers
had encountered technical issues, including product shrinkage and
incompatibility with customers' processes; (2) Zymergen lacked
visibility into the qualification process; (3) the Company had
overestimated demand for its products; and (4) the product delivery
timeline would be delayed, thereby affecting revenue generation.
On August 3, 2021, Zymergen announced it became aware of various
issues with its commercial product pipeline affecting delivery
timelines and revenue projections. Zymergen went on to disclose
that it did not expect any product revenue in 2021, and immaterial
product revenue in 2022. Further, several major customers were
unable to use Hyaline in their manufacturing processes.
On this news, the price of Zymergen shares fell $26.58 per share,
or 76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 4, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Zymergen securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/zymergeninc-zy-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-426/apply/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise
acquired Zymergen Inc. ("Zymergen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZY)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the offering documents
issued in connection with Zymergen's April 2021 initial public
offering (the "IPO"). Investors have until October 4, 2021 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
In April 2021, Zymergen completed its IPO, selling approximately
18.5 million shares of common stock at $31 per share.
On August 3, 2021, after the market closed, Zymergen issued a
business update stating that it "recently became aware of issues
with its commercial product pipeline that will impact the Company's
delivery timeline and revenue projections." Specifically, "several
key target customers encountered technical issues in implementing
Hyaline into their manufacturing processes," and Zymergen also
found that its total addressable market appears to be smaller than
previously expected. As a result, Zymergen "no longer expects
product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue to be
immaterial in 2022." The Company also announced that its CEO was
stepping down, effective immediately.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $26.58 per share, or
76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021, representing a
nearly 73% decline from the IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, during the qualification
process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical
issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with
customers' processes; (2) that, though the qualification process
was critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and
generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the
qualification process; (3) that, as a result, the Company
overestimated demand for its products; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's product delivery timeline was reasonably
likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Zymergen shares 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
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]
ZYMERGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming October 4, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zymergen Inc. ("Zymergen" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ZY) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
April 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
If you suffered a loss on your Zymergen 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/zymergen-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.
In April 2021, Zymergen completed its IPO, selling approximately
18.5 million shares of common stock at $31 per share.
On August 3, 2021, after the market closed, Zymergen issued a
business update stating that it "recently became aware of issues
with its commercial product pipeline that will impact the Company's
delivery timeline and revenue projections." Specifically, "several
key target customers encountered technical issues in implementing
Hyaline into their manufacturing processes," and Zymergen also
found that its total addressable market appears to be smaller than
previously expected. As a result, Zymergen "no longer expects
product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue to be
immaterial in 2022." The Company also announced that its CEO was
stepping down, effective immediately.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $26.58 per share, or
76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021, representing a
nearly 73% decline from the IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, during the qualification
process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical
issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with
customers' processes; (2) that, though the qualification process
was critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and
generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the
qualification process; (3) that, as a result, the Company
overestimated demand for its products; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's product delivery timeline was reasonably
likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Zymergen common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no
later than October 4, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff
in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class
action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this
class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the
pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210806005029/en/ [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ: ZY) common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Zymergen's
April 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") have until October 3,
2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Zymergen class
action lawsuit. The Zymergen class action lawsuit charges Zymergen,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
Zymergen's IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The
Zymergen class action lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of
California on August 4, 2021 and captioned Shankar v. Zymergen
Inc., No. 21-cv-06028.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Zymergen class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Zymergen class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than October 3, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Zymergen class action lawsuit alleges that
Zymergen's Registration Statement was materially false and
misleading and omitted to state that: (i) during the qualification
process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical
issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with
customers' processes; (ii) though the qualification process was
critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and generating
revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the qualification process;
(iii) as a result, Zymergen overestimated demand for its products;
(iv) consequently, Zymergen's product delivery timeline was
reasonably likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue
generation; and (v) thus, defendants' positive statements about
Zymergen's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On August 3, 2021, Zymergen issued a business update stating that
it "recently became aware of issues with its commercial product
pipeline that will impact the Company's delivery timeline and
revenue projections." Specifically, "several key target customers
encountered technical issues in implementing Hyaline into their
manufacturing processes," and Zymergen also found that its total
addressable market appears to be smaller than previously expected.
As a result, Zymergen "no longer expects product revenue in 2021,
and expects product revenue to be immaterial in 2022." Zymergen
also announced that its CEO was stepping down, effective
immediately. On this news, Zymergen's stock price fell
approximately 76%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Zymergen
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with Zymergen's IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Zymergen 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 Zymergen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Zymergen class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Zymergen class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff.
About Robbins Geller
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 https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more
information. [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of October 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Zymergen
Inc. ("Zymergen" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ZY) for violations of
the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in
April 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before
October 4, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/zymergen-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. Zymergen's key customers suffered from
technical problems during the qualification process for Hyaline
including product shrinkage. Although the qualification process was
critical to achieving customer acceptance for Hyaline, the Company
had very little visibility into the process. The Company
overestimated market demand for the new product. This led to likely
product delays and, in turn, delays in revenue generation. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements throughout the IPO
period were false and materially misleading. When the market
learned the truth about Zymergen, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
[*] Class Action Says Drugmakers Colluded to Restrict Insulin Sales
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert King at fiercehealthcare.com reports that four major
drugmakers colluded when they restricted sales to contract
pharmacies of insulin discounted under the 340B program, a new
class-action lawsuit alleges.
The federal lawsuit filed by Mosaic Health, a New York-based
collection of 22 safety net clinics, is the latest legal action
over the drugmakers' moves to restrict 340B contract pharmacy
sales. The Biden administration demanded drugmakers reverse the
restrictions, but several have sued to continue them.
The class-action lawsuit alleges that Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Novo
Nordisk and AstraZeneca colluded in the summer of 2020 to restrict
offering discounted products to 340B contract pharmacies.
The drugmakers should compete against each other, but instead "they
worked together to boost their profits by coordinating to retract a
long-standing discount for safety-net hospitals and clinics," the
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York said.
Mosaic argues that last summer the four drugmakers spent millions
lobbying the federal government to limit 340B drug discounts for
diabetes medicines such as insulin.
However, former President Donald Trump in July 2020 issued an
executive order that aimed to ensure 1,000 community health centers
would get insulin and injectable epinephrine at the 340B discounted
rate.
The lawsuit alleges that after the order, the drugmakers realized
their lobbying efforts would fail and colluded to eliminate or
limit 340B contract pharmacy discounts for their drugs, including
their insulin products.
"Indeed, on July 24, 2020, the very same day that executive order
was issued, the first defendant, AstraZeneca, revealed its
intention to restrict contract pharmacy 340B drug discounts," the
lawsuit said. "The other defendants executed similar plans in short
order."
The lawsuit argues that the drugmakers had to have colluded,
because if one had acted alone "it would have risked losing
significant market share in the lucrative markets for diabetes
treatments."
The lawsuit argues the four companies are responsible for the
overwhelming amount of diabetes drugs such as incretin mimetics,
rapid-acting analog insulins and long-acting insulin purchased by
340B contract pharmacies.
Eli Lilly did give a special exception for contract pharmacies to
pass along certain insulin products at cost, but the lawsuit argues
that the "exception was infeasible for covered entities and
pharmacies, as it required the contract pharmacies to fill
prescriptions without any fee whatsoever."
The lawsuit argued the exception was "so narrow that it was
virtually meaningless: Lilly prevented the collection of any
revenue by a covered entity to offset the dispensing fee the
covered entity would have to pay the contract pharmacy."
Eli Lilly shot back that the lawsuit was "baseless."
"We have offered to supply our penny priced insulins at the 340B
price to any contract pharmacy that commits to passing the discount
directly to the patient without limitation," the company said in a
statement to Fierce Healthcare.
Sanofi told Fierce Healthcare that the company started collecting
claims data on 340B drugs dispensed by the contract pharmacies. The
goal of the data is to ensure the company can avoid duplicative
discounts for 340B and Medicaid drugs, and the drugmaker argues the
move is in compliance with the 340B statute.
The other drugmakers did not return a request for comment on the
lawsuit as of press time.
Latest Turn in Long Feud
Drugmakers agree to offer discounted products to 340B-covered
entities which include safety net hospitals, community health
centers and clinics. In return, the drugmakers can participate in
Medicare and Medicaid.
But drugmakers have been chafing at the program for the past
several years, arguing it has gotten too big and that the discounts
are not trickling down to patients. Providers, in turn, say that
the program is vital to help safety net providers that operate on
thin margins handle ever-increasing drug prices.
More and more covered entities have contracted with third-party
pharmacies to dispense 340B drugs to patients. Drugmakers argue
that the restrictions against contract pharmacies are an attempt to
avoid duplicate discounts given to providers under 340B and
Medicaid, but hospitals and other providers argue the moves are an
end run to avoid offering the discounts.
The lawsuit is the latest move in an escalating legal feud over the
moves.
The Biden administration warned six drugmakers, including the four
listed in the lawsuit, over their decisions to restrict sales and
called for them to knock it off.
However, Eli Lilly, Sanofi and Novartis sued the federal government
in June, arguing the moves are legal under the 340B statute. [GN]
[*] New Securities Class Actions Filings Down 25% in 1Half of 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that plaintiffs filed 112 new securities
class action lawsuits in federal and state courts in the first half
of 2021, down 25% from the second half of 2020.
This was the lowest number of filings since the first half of 2015,
according to a report by Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.
The report, Securities Class Action Filings -- 2021 Midyear
Assessment, found that the decline in filing activity was largely
driven by a 66% drop in filings related to mergers and acquisitions
compared to the second half of 2020. Of the 112 filings in the
first half of 2021, only 12 were M&A filings.
Federal and state court class actions alleging claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 disclosure rules also declined, continuing
the trend observed in 2020.
As initial public offerings (IPO) for special purpose acquisition
companies continued to increase in 2020 and earlier this year,
filings against SPAC-related entities also increased sharply in the
first half of 2021. Despite the substantial decrease in total
filings, federal filings related to SPACs doubled in the first half
of 2021 compared to all of 2020. There were 14 SPAC filings in the
first six months of 2021, with more than half alleging that the
potential targets defrauded investors by misrepresenting their
product's viability.
Alexander "Sasha" Aganin, report coauthor and Cornerstone Research
senior vice president, said former SPACs have experienced a
litigation rate of approximately 14% after completion of their
mergers, which is roughly comparable to the cumulative litigation
rate experienced by traditional IPOs over the subsequent three
years.
The report also found a sharp decline in the number of 1933 Act
filings in state rather than federal court, continuing the trend
observed in the Securities Class Action Filings -- 2020 Year in
Review. All five 1933 Act claims filed in state court in the first
half of 2021 were brought in New York.
"The better the market for investors, the worse the market for
class action securities lawyers," observed Joseph A. Grundfest,
director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse, and a former Commissioner of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. "Plaintiff lawyers typically rely on sharp
price declines for their best cases, and if the market isn't
generating those declines, plaintiffs' ability to file big ticket
securities fraud actions is limited."
COVID-19 filings began tapering off in the first half of 2021, with
six of the 10 pandemic-related filings occurring in January and
February and only one filing in May or June. Of these filings, 50%
were related to treatments or vaccines that failed to make it to
market.
Key Trends
U.S. Exchange-Listed Companies: Of U.S. exchange-listed companies,
1.9% were the subject of a core filing (those excluding M&A claims)
in the first half of 2021. If this trend continues, this would be
the lowest exposure since 2015.
Disclosure Dollar Loss: The DDL Index fell to $80 billion, down 50%
from the second half of 2020 and 54% below its all-time high in the
first half of 2019. The DDL is the dollar value change in the
defendant firm's market capitalization between the trading day
immediately preceding the end of the class period and the trading
day immediately following the end of the class period.
Maximum Dollar Loss: The MDL Index dropped sharply to $361 billion
in the first half of the year, down nearly 64% from the second half
of 2020. MDL is the dollar value change in the defendant firm's
market capitalization from the trading day with the highest market
capitalization during the class period to the trading day
immediately following the end of the class period.
U.S. vs. Non-U.S. Companies: There were 15 federal filings against
non-U.S. issuers in the first half of 2021. The annualized total is
on track to be significantly less than the record-high 74 filings
against non-U.S. issuers in 2020.
Industries: Plaintiffs targeted the Energy sector with nearly twice
as many filings as in the second half of 2020. The Consumer
Non-Cyclical sector continued to be the most common sector with 31
filings, 13 of which were in the Biotechnology subsector.
Federal Circuits: There were 41 core federal filings in the Second
Circuit during the first half of 2021, up from 36 in the second
half of 2020. The Ninth Circuit saw 28 core filings during the
period, down from 43 in the second half of 2020 [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***