/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210813.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 156
Headlines
360 DIGITECH: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 13 Deadline
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Waits Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Brooks Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Datelle Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Dixon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Eckhoff Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Faces Dixon Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Olson Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
ABSTRACT CAPITAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ACE AMERICAN: Conditional Status of Settlement Class Sought
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Executive Removes Self as Executive Sponsor
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
ADVANCED CLEANING: Rivera Seeks Custodial Workers' Unpaid OT Wages
ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
AK BUILDING: Underpays Cleaners, Ferreira Suit Alleges
ALEXANDERS HARDWARE: Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ALLIANZ SE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
ANTHEM INC: Gianelli & Morris Files Class Action in California
AON PLC: 401(k) Plan Suit Against Subsidiary Underway
ARCIMOTO INC: Bragar Eagel Probes Potential Securities Claims
ARDELYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Settlement in California Suit Gets Final Nod
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Artex Clients' Class Suit Concluded
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: MSP Seeks to Certify Downstream Actor Class
BIGMOUTH INC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene-Related Suit Pending
BOOHOO.COM USA: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 6
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans "Tuition Fee" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BUMBLE BEE: Judges Votes to Rehear Class Certification Decision
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Blind Can't Access Website, Thompson Suit Claims
CABOT OIL: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Retirement System Suit Pending
CAFE H INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cuanetl Suit Alleges
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Longo Suit Seeks Class Certification
CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit Over Cybersecurity Incident Underway
CAPTAIN JOHN'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arabia-Andrews Alleges
CARLOTZ INC: Faces Turk Suit Over 13.4% Decline of Stock Price
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook IPO Suit Still Pending
CASA SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Joined Shen & Baig Suit Under Appeal
CATALYST FAMILY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Silva Suit Says
CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: Suit Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
CHARLOTTE, NC: Faces Protesters' Suit Over Police Officers' Actions
CHELSEA TRADING: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Lax Class Suit Gets Final Approval
CITGO PETROLEUM: Denies Benefits, Citgo Plan Participants Allege
CLOUDERA INC: Palkon Balks at Merger Deal With Investment Funds
COHNREZNICK LLP: Faces Class Action in New York Over Data Breach
COINBASE GLOBAL: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
CONCHO RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 28 Deadline
CONCHO RESOURCES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
CORMEDIX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 20 Deadline
COURTESY TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Wages, Castillo Suit Claims
CURRENEX INC: Faces Edmar Financial Suit Over Rig Auctions Scheme
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Florida
DIDI GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 7 Deadline
ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Discloses Private Reading Info, Kain Alleges
ELITE STONE: Saca et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EMPORIUM LEATHER: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EQUITABLE ACCEPTANCE: Judge Approves Student Loan Class Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over 2020 Presidential Election Tossed
FFG BAGEL: Faces Perera Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
FLAT ROOF SPECIALIST: Faces Herrick Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
FRESNO, CA: Judge Allows Tainted Water Class Action to Proceed
FULL TRUCK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 10 Deadline
GARDNER PIE: Faces Elam Class Suit Over Failure to Provide OT Pay
GOOGLE LLC: Advertisers Sue Over Unlawful Agreement With Facebook
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action Over Online Ad Auctions
GOOGLE LLC: Starts Paying Out Google+ Class Action Privacy Claims
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Erford Claims
HANWHA TECHWIN: Federal Court Dismisses Biometric Class Action
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Johnson Sues Over Unsolicited Collection Calls
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Aids and Abets Ponzi Scheme, Chang Alleges
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff's Affidavit Filed in Del. Ch.
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klein Class Suit Over Share Price Drop
IVORY ELLA: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JAMES HARDIE: No Compensation for Homeowners in Cladding Case
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Elmiron Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Invokana Related Suits
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in cART Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Remicade Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Cause Cancer, Fernadez Says
KOPPERS INC: Bryant Files Suit in D. Maryland
LONOKE COUNTY SAFE HAVEN: McLain Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
LUCKIN COFFEE: Sept. 17 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MATOUK TEXTILE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEN TAKING: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
MISSISSIPPI DOC: Wallace Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
MMA CAPITAL: Reinhardt Balks at Fundamental Advisors' Merger Deal
MOLLY PICON: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Faces Schexnaildre Suit Over No-Poach Agreement
NATIONAL CEMENT: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Federal Court Tosses Conspiracy Class Action Suit
NEW JADE: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
NEW YORK HEALTHCARE: Health Aides Seek Minimum, Overtime Pay
NEWSWEEK LLC: Discloses Private Reading Information, Eberhardt Says
NOBLE ENERGY: Wants 10th Cir. to Remand Royalty Owners' Suit
NYC HEALTH: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Greene Suit Claims
OPTUM INC: Judge Decertifies Consultants' Underpayment Class Suit
OTB ACQUISITION: Faces Shaw Suit Over Tip Credit, Unpaid Wages
OUTSIDE INTEGRATED: Discloses Private Reading Info, Loftus Alleges
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
PERFORMANCE TEAM: Fails to Pay Bonuses, Accrued Vacation, Suit Says
PINCHME.COM INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
POINT PICKUP: Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
PREFERRED PUMP: Gamble Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PRESSLER FELT: Amelko Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settlement Reached in DACA Recipient's Suit
PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS: Commisso Files Suit in N.D. New York
PRONET GROUP: Faces Herrick Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
RADIUS GLOBAL: Layne Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
RAVALLI COUNTY SHERIFF: Evenson-Childs Files Suit in D. Montana
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Potts Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Over Securities Lawsuit Reached
ROBERT ANDERSON: Discusses Class Action Over Medical Malpractice
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 30 Deadline
SMASHBURGER IP: Faces Class Action Over Biweekly Pay
SOUTH COAST: CTA Seeks to Enjoin Enforcement of Rule 2305 in Cal.
STABLE ROAD: Faces Depoy Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
TACO INN: Hidalgo Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
TAKATA CORP: Woman Sentenced for Falsely Claiming Airbag Injuries
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Restricts Generic Entry, Value Drug Claims
TED BAKER: Faces Margarian Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
TESLA INC: Ex Employee Awarded $1 Million Over Workplace Harassment
TRANSUNION LLC: Blank Rome Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
TRANSUNION LLC: Consumer Suit Raises Bar for Bringing Class Actions
TRANSUNION LLC: Epiq Discusses Supreme Court Ruling on Privacy Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: King & Spalding Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
TROPICALE FOODS: Helados Mexico Label "Deceptive," Tavake Suit Says
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit From Students Over LGBTQ+ Discrimination
VISION SOLAR: Doane TCPA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Background Check Policy
WALMART INC: Lebby Seeks Warehouse Employees' Unpaid Wages, OT
WOLF & BADGER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WYNN RESORTS: Judge Revives Elements of Securities Fraud Suit
YAMAZAKI USA: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ZOOM VIDEO: Bilzin Sumberg Attorney Discusses Privacy Suit Ruling
ZOOM VIDEO: October 21 Class Settlement Approval Hearing Set
ZYMERGEN INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Files Securities Suit
ZYMERGEN INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 119 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Intl. Defends 3,617 PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Incurs $1.6MM Asbestos Costs in Q2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,788 Pending Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Defends A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., Subsidiaries Defends PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Has Potential CARO Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Intl. Faces Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $23MM Asbestos Claims
WASHINGTON PRIME: Announces 2nd Quarter 2021 Results
*********
360 DIGITECH: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges 360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ:QFIN) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.
Class Period: Apr. 30, 2020 - July 7, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 13, 2021
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/QFIN
Contact An Attorney Now:QFIN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
360 DigiTech, Inc. (QFIN) Securities Fraud Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Defendants falsely claimed that 360
DigiTech protects the privacy of its borrowers and maintains high
standards of compliance with People's Republic of China ("PRC")
regulations, while omitting to disclose material facts.
Specifically, Defendants concealed that: (i) the company had been
collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws
and regulations; and (ii) accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to
an increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement
action.
The truth emerged on July 8, 2021, when reports circulated that 360
DigiTech's core product (the 360 IOU app) had been removed from
major app stores. In addition, media outlets reported that reason
for the removal may stem from interviews PRC financial regulators
conducted of 360 DigiTech and other major Fintech platforms on Apr.
29, 2021, during which the PRC central bank reportedly pointed out
that online platform companies like 360 DigiTech "generally have
unlicensed or over-licensed financial services, imperfect corporate
governance mechanisms, and regulatory arbitrage, Unfair competition
[sic], damage to consumers' legal rights and other serious
violations."
In response, the price of 360 DigiTech American Depositary Shares
sharply fell on July 8, 2021.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving 360 DigiTech
concealed the risk posed by its personal information collection
activities," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading
the investigation.
If you invested in 360 DigiTech and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here
to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding 360
DigiTech should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email QFIN@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. [GN]
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Waits Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WINGATE WAITS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02469-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Brooks Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD DEVERE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02466-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF
products in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the
products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants'
instructions as to the proper handling of the products, the suit
says.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Datelle Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH MICHAEL DATELLE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02425-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 3,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Datelle case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Dixon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNY DIXON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02412-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 3,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Dixon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Eckhoff Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALAN ECKHOFF, SR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02413-RMG (D.S.C., Aug. 3,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Eckhoff case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Faces Dixon Suit Over Complications From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN RAY DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02465-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Olson Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN JOHN OLSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02468-RMG
(D.S.C., August 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ABSTRACT CAPITAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abstract Capital
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Abstract Capital
Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-06453 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Abstract Capital -- https://www.abstractcap.com/ -- offers business
loans & payment processing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
ACE AMERICAN: Conditional Status of Settlement Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MAYFIELD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-02425-SDG (N.D. Ga.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the Settlement Class with respect
to Plaintiff's claim For accidental death benefits;
2. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement; and
3. approving the proposed Notice Package, and setting a date
for a final fairness hearing that is no earlier than 140
days from the date of preliminary approval and as soon
thereafter as the Court's calendar permits.
The Plaintiff Mayfield was a pilot and long-time employee of Delta
Airlines. Through his employer, Mayfield and his wife were covered
under an ERISA group accident ("AD&D") plan, insured by ACE. In
April 2016, Mayfield's wife, Alison, passed away. Following her
death, Mayfield filed a claim for benefits under the Delta AD&D
policy with ACE's agent and third-party administrator, ACI.
Consistent with the procedures set forth in the plan, ACI sent
Mayfield a letter acknowledging the claim with a list of additional
information needed to process his claim. That list did not include
mention of an Independent Medical Review ("IMR").
As detailed in his Complaint in this matter, Mayfield's claim for
benefits was initially denied on the basis of a second IMR
commissioned by ACI. Mayfield then retained counsel and
administratively appealed the denial of benefits. After a second
administrative appeal, ACE awarded benefits. The administrative
appeals process took approximately 21 months to complete. Mayfield
inquired about interest on the benefits payment, but ACI denied any
interest was owed on the benefits.
ACE operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated July 29, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iErEC9 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Berger, Esq.
Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
halm@sgb-law.com
- and -
Matthew N. Menzer, Esq.
JohnDavid G. Toren, Esq.
MENZER LAW FIRM, PLLC
705 Second Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone: (206) 903-1818
E-mail: mnm@menzerlawfirm.com
johndavid@menzerlawfirm.com
- and -
Andrew Beal,Esq.
BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
600 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3900
Atlanta, GA 30308
Telephone: (404) 781-1100
E-mail: abeal@buckleybeal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
H. Douglas Hinson, Esq.
Emily Costin, Esq.
Amanda Waide, Esq.
Blake Crohan, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
E-mail: tiffany.powers@alston.com
doug.hinson@alston.com
emily.costin@alston.com
Amanda.waide@alston.com
blake.crohan@alston.com
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Aug. 5 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Activision Blizzard Inc. ("Activision" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ATVI) from August 4, 2016 through July 27, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Activision securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Activision
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Rujul Patel toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period. The Complaint
alleges that Activision discriminated against both women and
minorities employed by its organization. Numerous employee
complaints of sexual harassment, retaliation, and other
inappropriate activities were reported to human resources and
executives, but unaddressed. The Company also failed to inform
investors that it was under investigation by the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") over allegations
of sexual harassment and other discrimination. Finally, in July
2021, Bloomberg Law revealed that DFEH had filed a lawsuit against
Activision following a lengthy two-year investigation into the
Company's practices. Based on these facts, Activision's public
statements were false and materially misleading during the Class
Period.
On this news, the price of Activision shares fell $5.89 per share
to close at $84.95 per share on July 27, 2021, thereby injuring
investors.
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 Activision securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/activisionblizzardinc-atvi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-424/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]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Aug. 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Activision Blizzard, Inc. ("Activision
Blizzard" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATVI) in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Activision Blizzard securities between August 4, 2016 and July 27,
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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
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 ("DFEH") 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. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
On this news, the price of Activision Blizzard shares traded at
unusually high volumes and fell $5.89, or over 6%, to close at
$84.05 on July 27, 2021.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Activision Blizzard 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 & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Executive Removes Self as Executive Sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephany Nunneley at vg247.com reports that Frances Townsend,
Activision Blizzard's president of corporate affairs, has removed
herself from her role as executive sponsor of the company's ABK
Women's Network.
News that Townsend has stepped down comes in the wake of criticism
stemming from a combative company email and of her retweeting an
article calling out whistleblowers.
According to an article published by The Washington Post, Townsend
stated that by stepping down as sponsor, she is doing what's "right
for the Network." Townsend also stated she will "continue to
support and advance the work of the Network as best she can,"
(thanks, IGN).
Townsend was recently criticized by current and former employees
regarding the leaked email where she stated the lawsuit brought
against Activision Blizzard by the state of California presented a
"distorted and untrue picture" of the company. She went on to state
the allegations are "factually incorrect," old, and tell "out of
context stories." The email also called the lawsuit "meritless and
irresponsible."
According to two employees speaking with The Washington Post,
Townsend hosted a Zoom call with employees on July 23 where she
defended her email. According to her, the email was drafted after
following legal counsel's guidance on language, and that the "end
result no longer sounded much like her voice." It was after the
call that Towsned decided to step down from the women's network.
Townsend was criticized again when she retweeted an article titled
"The Problem With Whistleblowing." Many Blizzard employees found
this unseemly due to the amount of current and former employees
sharing their stories online and to journalists. Because of the
criticism, Townsend started blocking members of the press as well
as Blizzard employees before eventually deactivating her account -
of her own volition.
On July 20, California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing
filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, after conducting a
two-year investigation into allegations of discrimination, sexual
harassment, and a prevalent "frat-boy culture."
In response to statements made by Activision Blizzard calling the
lawsuit "meritless," along with the initial statement made by
Townsend, employees staged a walkout to stand in solidarity with
current and former employees over stories shared, support of the
lawsuit, and to protest current leadership.
Staffers also signed an open letter demanding those responsible be
held accountable. Company CEO Bobby Kotick issued a statement
thereafter, admitting the company's initial response to the
allegations made in the lawsuit was "tone-deaf," however, employees
felt his statement didn't fully address their concerns.
Also concerning to employees was Kotick's hiring of the law firm
WilmerHale to review the company's policies and procedures. The
problem Blizzard employees have with the firm, is that it has a
reputation for busting unions, and quelling calls for collective
bargaining among workers.
In the wake of all this, Blizzard's president J.Allen Brack and HR
head Jesse Meschuk have left their positions, shareholders have
filed a class-action suit against the company for hiding
Califonia's probe into the firm, and Overwatch League sponsors
Coca-Cola, Kellogg, and State Farm are each re-evaluating their
sponsorships.
Considering the lawsuit was only filed recently, it may be a while
before Activision Blizzard has its day in court. [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Chalk, writing for PCGamer, reports that Activision Blizzard
is facing another legal action arising out of the lawsuit filed
against it in July by California's Department of Fair Employment
and Housing, which alleges widespread discrimination, sexual
harassment, and a "frat boy" culture throughout the company.
Somewhat confusingly, this new action, available via Ars Technica,
is not being filed on behalf of employees, but shareholders who
have allegedly suffered losses because Activision Blizzard failed
to disclose that it was under investigation.
The suit, which names Activision Blizzard as a company as well as
CEO Bobby Kotick, CFO Dennis Durkin, and previous CFO Spencer
Neumann as individual defendants, alleges that the company made
"false and misleading statements" between August 4, 2016, and July
27, 2021, in SEC filings that failed to disclose the company was
actually a hostile workplace for women and minorities, that
numerous complaints had been made to its HR department over the
years, and that DFEH had launched an investigation as a result.
"As a result, Defendant's statements about Activision Blizzard's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times,"
the suit says.
The lawsuit also notes that since the DFEH action was filed, more
than 2,000 current and former employees have signed a letter
condemning the company's initial response to the suit, and that
plans for a walkout were announced on July 27. As a result,
Activision Blizzard shares fell by more than 6% on that same date,
causing a loss for investors, who purchased shares in the company
at "artificially inflated" prices because of misleading executive
and company statements.
"Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that
the market price of Activision Blizzard securities had been
artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading
statements and by the material adverse information which Defendants
did not disclose, they would not have purchased Activision Blizzard
securities at the artificially inflated prices that they did, or at
all," the suit states. "As a result of the wrongful conduct alleged
herein, Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered
damages in an amount to be established at trial."
The lawsuit has not actually been certified as a class action at
this point, and the Rosen Law Firm warned that until it is, nobody
applying to be a part of the class actually has legal
representation in the matter unless they hire their own lawyers
independently. There is, however, currently no obligation to take
part: Potential litigants "may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point," the law firm said. It also notes in
the retention agreement that it can apply to claim up to 33.3% of
any amount recovered in the case, "plus disbursements," (including
travel expenses, paralegal fees, and more) which will be claimed
first.
Interestingly, while Activision Blizzard employees were largely
unsatisfied by the statements made in the second quarter financial
report and investors call, the market seems more impressed. The
company's share price bounced back to almost $85 in after-hours
trading, a 6.29% increase. [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 4 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 3
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ATVI) between August 4, 2016 and July 27, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Activision Blizzard investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Activision Blizzard class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2129.htmlhttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.html
or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
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. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2129or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Activision
Blizzard, Inc. ("Activision Blizzard" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
ATVI) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 4,
2016 and July 27, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 4, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Activision Blizzard discriminated against
both women and minorities employed by its organization. The Company
allowed a "frat boy" culture to thrive in its offices. Numerous
employee complaints of sexual harassment, retaliation, and other
inappropriate activities were reported to human resources and
executives only to be ignored. The Company failed to inform
investors that it was under investigation by the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") over allegations
of sexual harassment and other discrimination. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Activision Blizzard, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against AdaptHealth Corp.
("AdaptHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AHCO) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired AdaptHealth shares between November 11, 2019 and July 16,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/ahco.
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) AdaptHealth had misrepresented its organic growth
trajectory by retroactively inflating past organic growth numbers
without disclosing the changes, in violation of SEC regulations;
(2) accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its
financial prospects; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading 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/ahco 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
AdaptHealth you have until September 27, 2021 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
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.
Contacts:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
ADVANCED CLEANING: Rivera Seeks Custodial Workers' Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA RIVERA, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCED CLEANING SERVICES OF LONG
ISLAND, INC. and RICK SCARPINELLA, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-04363 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2021) alleges the Defendants of
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
custodial worker from in or about 2018 to 2019 and from June 2020
until on or about June 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours in a single workweek, the Defendants did not pay her overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the
Defendants paid her for up to 40 hours by check and in cash at her
regular rate of pay for those hours worked after 40 hours per week.
In addition, the Defendants denied her of spread-of-hours pay for
each workday in which she worked more than 10 hours. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to provide her written notice of her rate of pay
and other information upon hire, and failed to provide her with an
accurate wage statement each pay period, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover damages for herself
and all other similarly situated employees, that includes all
unpaid wages and an additional and equal amount as liquidated
damages, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
Advanced Cleaning Services of Long Island, Inc. provides janitorial
and custodial services. Rick Scarpinella is a shareholder and/or
officer of the company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
ADVISORS MORTGAGE: Harvey Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff v. ADVISORS MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00033201-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 4, 2021) brings
this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate him
and other similarly situated aggrieved non-exempt employees for all
the time they performed work for the Defendants, including minimum
and overtime wages, at the correct rate. This is due to the
Defendants' unlawful rounding off of their time punches, and
failure to correctly include other incentive pay in the overtime
rate. In addition, the Defendants failed to provide them all
required meal periods and rest breaks, and/or payment of one
additional hour of pay at their regular ate of pay when they did
not receive a timely, uninterrupted meal period and when rest break
was missed. Moreover, the Defendants did not provide with itemized
accurate wage statements, and failed to timely pay all of their
wages due upon separation of employment, says the Plaintiff.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief
against the Defendants to recover all unpaid wages, unpaid meal
period and rest breaks, interest, attorneys' fees, litigation
costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Advisors Mortgage Group, LLC provides mortgage banking. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
E-mail: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com
AK BUILDING: Underpays Cleaners, Ferreira Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
The case, DIEGO FERREIRA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AK BUILDING SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-61611-XXXX (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid cleaner from around February 1, 2021 to April 16,
2021.
The Plaintiff claims that although he worked about 65 hours in each
week for the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay him his lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant
created a scheme to avoid paying him overtime and his regular rate
of pay by paying him each two-week period via direct deposit to the
same bank account, but were paid to his spouse and in her name,
including associated FICA and Medicare withholdings, although his
wife never physically worked a day for the Defendant. The Defendant
allegedly used this two-check system to deceive the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated cleaners.
AK Building Services, Inc. is a commercial cleaning company that
offers cleaning office buildings services to commercial customers.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Salas, Esq.
Michael G. Green II, Esq.
SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
2601 E. Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 406
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
Tel: (954) 315-1155
Fax: (954) 827-8058
E-mail: jp@salaslawfirmpa.com
michael@salaslawfirmpa.com
ALEXANDERS HARDWARE: Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROLANDO SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ALEXANDERS HARDWARE CORP., and ALEXANDER KATSNELSON, as
an individual, Case No. 1:21-cv-04310 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2021)
seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations
of the state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of
Plaintiff's employment at Alexanders Hardware.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was a sales associate and performing
other miscellaneous duties from November 2017 until June 2021 for
the Defendants. The Plaintiff worked 60 hours or more per week
during his employment.
As a result of the alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages, and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00.
The Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal, and equitable remedies that this Court deems
appropriate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone (718) 263-9591
ALLIANZ SE: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 3
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Allianz SE (OTC: ALIZY) resulting from
allegations that Allianz may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Allianz securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2136.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On August 1, 2021, Allianz disclosed that
"[s]ubsequent to the litigation pending in U.S. courts in relation
to the Structured Alpha Funds against Allianz Global Investors U.S.
LLC and other Allianz Group companies and the investigation
launched by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC') in
2020, the U.S. Department of Justice ('DOJ') has begun an
investigation concerning the Structured Alpha Funds, and Allianz
Global Investors U.S. LLC has received a voluntary request for
documents and information from the DOJ." Allianz further stated
that "[i]n light of the DOJ investigation and based on information
available to Allianz as of Aug. 3, the Board of Management of
Allianz SE has reassessed the matter and has come to the conclusion
that there is a relevant risk that the matters relating to the
Structured Alpha Funds could materially impact future financial
results of Allianz Group."
On this news, the Company's American depositary receipt ("ADR")
price fell $2.00, or 8%, to close at $22.85 per ADR on August 2,
2021, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ANTHEM INC: Gianelli & Morris Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2021, the California insurance law firm Gianelli &
Morris filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The case is Brenda
Honeycutt v. Anthem, Inc. (Case No.: 2:21-cv-6124). The complaint
seeks benefits due under the insurance policy at issue,
clarification of rights and future benefits, a class-wide
injunction, and disgorgement of profits from the alleged wrongful
denial of policy benefits, among other relief.
The complaint alleges that Anthem, Inc. and its subsidiaries
improperly denied claims for surgery with Coflex, an interlaminar
stabilization device to treat lumbar spinal stenosis.
According to court documents, lumbar spinal stenosis is a
debilitating and degenerative disease affecting 1.6 million
patients annually. The disease causes significant leg and back
pain, numbness and weakness. Traditional surgical treatment options
include decompression by removing bone and soft tissue, sometimes
accompanied by a fusion of vertebrae to stabilize the spine.
Coflex is an "interlaminar stabilization device" that is inserted
through a minimal incision to keep the decompressed area of the
spine open and table. When combined with Coflex, decompression
procedures are alleged to be more durable and sustainable, with
patients less likely to need a reoperation or other future
intervention. Court documents allege that Coflex obtains improved
results over decompression alone, causes less trauma and a faster
recovery period than fusion, and is not inferior to decompression
with fusion.
Lawsuit Says Requests to Use Coflex Are Categorically Denied
Documents filed with the court allege that Anthem categorically
denies all requests for Coflex as investigational and not medically
necessary. Specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint quotes from
Anthem's Medical Policy for Implanted Devices for Spinal Stenosis,
SURG.00092, an internal company guideline that deems the use of
Coflex "investigational and not medically necessary."
According to the complaint, in denying Ms. Honeycutt's request for
Coflex, Anthem relied on its coverage guideline to say Coflex was
not needed to keep the decompressed space open and to claim that
not enough studies have been conducted to show Coflex is safe and
effective. The complaint alleges that Anthem has a practice of
relying on this guideline to deny all claims for Coflex without
regard to the individual patient's medical condition, need, or
qualification for the device.
The complaint quotes from the plaintiff's Anthem plan that defines
an investigational procedure as one that lacks final approval from
the appropriate government regulatory body, lacks credible
scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature,
has not been proven materially to improve the patient's net health
outcome, has not shown to be as beneficial as any established
alternative, and has not shown improvement outside investigational
settings.
In response to Anthem's assertions of Coflex as investigational,
the complaint alleges that Coflex is a Class III medical device
approved by the FDA in 2012 through the agency's premarket approval
process that requires clinical human trials and numerous studies
and investigations of the device's safety and effectiveness. The
complaint further alleges that Coflex has been the subject of
additional peer-reviewed clinical studies, has received wide
adoption by spine surgeons nationwide, and has garnered positive
coverage recommendations from the International Society for the
Advancement of Spine Surgery, the North American Spine Society, the
American Pain Society and the National Institute for Health and
Care Excellence.
Lead plaintiff's attorney Rob Gianelli stated, "Anthem has denied
necessary medical treatment for its members with serious back
conditions who need surgery with Coflex. Despite the fact that
surgery with Coflex has been FDA-approved for years, is recommended
by top spine surgeons across the country, and frees patients from
chronic pain and disability, Anthem categorically denies it as
"investigational." This class action lawsuit seeks to remedy that
injustice."
This class-action complaint is filed on behalf of all persons
covered under ERISA health plans, self-funded or fully insured,
that are administered by Anthem and whose claims for Coflex were
denied on the basis the treatment is investigational and not
medically necessary. The lawsuit seeks clarification that Coflex is
covered and is not investigational or non medically necessary. The
plaintiff further seeks a reevaluation of all the denied claims
without the allegedly erroneous denial bases, along with a
clarification of the members' rights to future benefits. Plaintiff
is also seeking a judicial order declaring that the denials at
issue were wrong and improper and requiring Anthem to retract the
allegedly erroneous medical policy language and notify all class
members of the retraction. The lawsuit requests a surcharge in the
form of an accounting and disgorgement of any profits made and
retained through the improper denial of claims, along with payment
of attorneys' fees and such other equitable and remedial relief as
the court may deem just and proper. [GN]
AON PLC: 401(k) Plan Suit Against Subsidiary Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Aon plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2021, that Aon Investments USA, Inc. continues to
defend a class action related to Lowe Companies, Inc.'s 401(k)
Plan.
Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc. now known as Aon Investments
USA, Inc., Lowe's Companies, Inc. and the Administrative Committee
of Lowe's Companies, Inc. (collectively "Lowe's") were sued on
April 27, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
participants in the Lowe's 401(k) Plan.
Aon Investments provided investment consulting services to Lowe's
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA").
The plaintiffs contend that in 2015 Lowe's imprudently placed the
Hewitt Growth Fund in the Plan's lineup of investments, the Hewitt
Growth Fund underperformed its benchmarks, and that Aon had a
conflict of interest in recommending the proprietary fund for the
Plan.
The plaintiffs allege the Plan suffered over $200 million in
investment losses when compared to the eight funds it replaced. The
plaintiffs allege that Aon Investments breached its duties of
loyalty and prudence pursuant to the ERISA statute.
The matter was tried to the Court the last week of June 2021.
Aon believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend itself against these claims.
Aon plc is a global provider of risk management services, insurance
and reinsurance brokerage, and human resource consulting and
outsourcing, delivering distinctive client value via innovative and
effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions. The
Company is headquartered in London, England.
ARCIMOTO INC: Bragar Eagel Probes Potential Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating certain officers and directors of
Arcimoto, Inc. on behalf of long-term stockholders. More
information about each potential case can be found at the link
provided.
Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV)
Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and
directors of Arcimoto following a class action complaint that was
filed against Arcimoto on April 19, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the preorders of Arcimoto's Fun Utility Vehicles ("FUVs")
were fabricated or never completed, with only 19 units delivered
out of an alleged preorder of 422; (2) Arcimoto failed to disclose
to customers that nearly 100% of its vehicles delivered were under
safety recall; (3) Arcimoto's largest customer, R-Key-Moto, was an
undisclosed related party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC; (4)
Arcimoto's partnership with HULA was an undisclosed related party
transaction; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on our investigation into Arcimoto go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/FUV
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]
ARDELYX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ardelyx Inc. ("Ardelyx") (NASDAQ: ARDX) between
August 6, 2020 and July 19, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. To
get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ardelyx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18198&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.
Ardelyx Inc. NEWS - ARDX NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding tenapanor and
the likelihood that it would be approved by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"). Defendants possessed, were in control over,
and as a result, knew that the data submitted to support the New
Drug Application was insufficient in that it showed a lack of
clinical relevance of the drug's treatment effect, making it
foreseeably likely that the FDA would not approve the drug.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Ardelyx,
you have until September 28, 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 Ardelyx securities between August
6, 2020 and July 19, 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/ardelyx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18198&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]
ARDELYX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Ardelyx, Inc.
("Ardelyx" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ARDX) for violations of
§§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 6,
2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 28, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Ardelyx knew or had reason to know that
the data it submitted to the FDA as part of the New Drug
Application ("NDA") for tenapanor was insufficient. The Company's
NDA demonstrated a lack of clinical relevance for the drug's
treatment effect. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Ardelyx,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Settlement in California Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court entered
judgment approving the class action settlement and issued an order
dismissing the case in its entirety with prejudice.
On November 15, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading
statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and November 4,
2019.
On March 2, 2020, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 2, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint asserting similar violations and
expanding the alleged class period to cover alleged false and/or
misleading statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and
March 3, 2020.
On August 17, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition on October 1,
2020.
On November 30, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle
to fully resolve this matter. The settlement agreement provides in
part for a settlement payment of $3.75 million in exchange for the
dismissal and a release of all claims against the defendants.
Neither the Company nor any individual defendant admits any
wrongdoing through the settlement agreement. The $3.75 million
settlement payment was paid by our insurance provider under our
relevant insurance policy.
On January 15, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 23, 2021, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, preliminary
certification of the settlement class and approval to provide
notice to the class.
On July 20, 2021 the court entered judgement approving the class
action settlement and issued an order dismissing the case in its
entirety with prejudice.
The Company has recognized a corresponding $3.75 million insurance
receivable and $3.75 million accrued expense related to this matter
in the captions Accounts and notes receivable, net and Accounts
payable and accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as
of June 30, 2021.
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient
flooring products for use primarily in the construction and
renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings.
The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Artex Clients' Class Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the ruling of the trial court dismissing the class action
by the micro-captive clients of Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. and such
ruling concluded the class action lawsuit in the company's favor.
On December 7, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company, Artex Risk Solutions, Inc. (Artex) and other defendants,
in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
The named plaintiffs were micro-captives and their related entities
and owners who had IRC Section 831(b) tax benefits disallowed by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
The complaint alleged that the defendants defrauded the plaintiffs
by marketing and managing micro-captives with the knowledge that
the captives did not constitute bona fide insurance and thus would
not qualify for tax benefits.
On August 5, 2019, the trial court granted the defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and dismissed the class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 9, 2020, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court dismissing the class
action lawsuit.
On March 17, 2021, plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On June 28, 2021,
the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition for
a writ of certiorari.
This ruling concluded the class action lawsuit in the company's
favor.
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., together with its subsidiaries, provides
insurance brokerage, consulting, and third party claims settlement
and administration services to entities in the United States and
internationally. The company offers its services through a network
of correspondent insurance brokers and consultants. Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. was founded in 1927 and is headquartered in Rolling
Meadows, Illinois.
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: MSP Seeks to Certify Downstream Actor Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:20-cv-00553-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying the following Settlement Class:
"All Medicare Advantage Plans and downstream actors (or their
assignees) that have borne the cost of a conditional payment
in providing benefits under Medicare Part C, in the United
States of America and its territories, who made payments for
a Medicare Enrollee's medical expenses where Defendant:
(1) is the primary payer by virtue of having settled a claim
with a Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee;
(2) settled a dispute to pay for medical expenses with a
Medicare Advantage Plan Enrollee; and
(3) failed to reimburse Medicare Advantage Plans and
downstream actors (or their assignees) for their
conditional payments upon settling with a Medicare
Enrollee."
This class definition excludes (a) Defendant, its
officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries,
and affiliates; and (b) any judges or justices involved
in this action and any members of their immediate
families.
Defendant Atlantic Specialty is a liability insurer that under the
Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") law, is responsible to either pay
the medical expenses of Medicare beneficiaries before Medicare
Advantage Organization ("MAO" or "MA Plan") class members pay
anything or, if the putative class members pay first for any
reason, Defendant must reimburse them.
Accordingly, the Defendant's general liability policies also
include medical payments (or "MedPay") provisions which obligate
the Defendant to reimburse medical expenses regardless of fault. In
that way, the Defendant also qualifies as a "no-fault" insurer for
the purposes of the MSP laws. The class members are, essentially,
private Medicare entities that "stand in the shoes" of Medicare and
are entitled to the same rights and protections when it comes to
their reimbursement rights.
The Defendant's violations of the MSP law are engrained and
ongoing. The Defendant fails to investigate Medicare Advantage
liens and to reimburse Medicare Advantage Plans as a matter of
standard practice. And in the context of settlements, the Defendant
routinely abdicates its reimbursement obligations by delegating its
duty to bodily injury claimants and their counsel, the Plaintiff
contends.
Since the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), providers and insurers
subject to HIPAA are required to submit their claims
electronically, except in limited circumstances. Accordingly,
providers submit their bills electronically and those bills are
paid electronically in the normal course of business. The way
Plaintiff's assignor and class members store their claims and
payment data also is governed by HIPAA, specifically, by the
Electronic Data Interchange ("EDI").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xCG36k
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
BIGMOUTH INC: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bigmouth Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Bigmouth Inc., Bigmouth LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06712-ER (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BigMouth Inc. -- https://bigmouthinc.com/ -- is a designer and
manufacturer of outrageous lifestyle products based in Omaha,
NE.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company's motion
to dismiss the purported shareholder class action suit related to
Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec, is pending.
On September 25, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
President of Worldwide Research and Development and its Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in the United States
District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging
violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or
misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and Biologics
License Application (BLA) for valoctocogene roxaparvovec by
purportedly failing to disclose that differences between the
Company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical studies limited the
ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene
roxaparvovec's durability of effect and, as a result, that it was
foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the BLA without
additional data.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other
costs.
In December 2020, the court hearing the case appointed
Arbejdsmarkedets Tillagspension as lead plaintiff.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2021,
dropping our Chief Financial Officer as a defendant, and asserting
that the Company misled investors about the progress of the Food
and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review of the company's BLA for
valoctocogene roxaparvovec.
The company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on April
22, 2021.
BioMarin said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and we
intend to vigorously defend this action."
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. owns and operates a facility that
specializes in producing enzymes to treat diseases and various
medical conditions, such as chronic genetic disorders. The company
is based in San Rafael, California.
BOOHOO.COM USA: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARID KHAN, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
BOOHOO.COM USA INC. a Delaware corporation, BOOHOO.COM UK LIMITED,
a United Kingdom private limited company, BOOHOO GROUP PLC, a
Jersey public limited company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. e
2:20-cv-03332-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George H. Wu
entered an order that:
1. The fact discovery cutoff for class discovery shall be
November 19, 2021.
2. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification shall be extended to December 6, 2021.
3. Defendants' deadline to file their opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be
extended to January 17, 2022.
4. Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply in support of
their motion for class certification shall be extended to
February 7, 2022.
5. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
shall be continued to February 21, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.
Boohoo Group plc is a United Kingdom-based online fashion
retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated July 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yEwBRe at no extra charge.[CC]
BRIGHAM YOUNG: Evans "Tuition Fee" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSCOE EVANS, an
individual on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah corporation, Case No.
1:20-cv-00100-TS-CMR (D. Utah), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the claims in this action as a class action;
2. confirming Plaintiff as class representative;
3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel Watton Law Group, Leeds
Brown Law, P.C., the Sultzer Law Group, P.C. and Carson
Lynch, as Class Counsel; and
4. ordering the parties' counsel to meet and confer to
develop appropriate notice to Class members.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class:
"All persons who paid tuition and/or the Mandatory Fees to
attend in-person class(es) during the Winter 2020
term/semester affected by COVID-19 at BYU and had their
class(es) moved to online-only learning (the "Class")."
According to the complaint, the Court should grant Plaintiff's
motion and certify the proposed Class because every member suffered
the same harm when Brigham Young University ("BYU" or "Defendant")
breached identical contractual obligations to each of member of the
proposed Class on the same date. This level of uniformity makes
this case especially well-suited for resolution as a class action
under Rule 23.
The Plaintiff's action arises out of BYU's decision at the end of
the semester to retain the full amount of tuition and full amount
of fees, despite being unable to provide students, like Plaintiff,
with the in-person and on-campus educational services that they
agreed to, contracted for, and paid for.
Prior to the beginning of each term or semester, Plaintiff paid the
full price of tuition to attend BYU, as well as the full price in
related fees. As alleged, he made these payments in advance of and
in exchange for in-person and on-campus educational services,
experiences, and opportunities as detailed in Defendant's
marketing, advertisements, and other public representations. In
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, BYU canceled all in-person and
on-campus educational services then transitioned to online-only
education.
Therefore, Plaintiff and the Class did not receive the benefit and
services that they bargained for when they paid BYU tuition and
various fees. Accordingly, Plaintiff properly asserts claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. This Court's earlier
decision and order of January 7, 2021, denying Defendant's Motion
To Dismiss confirms the same.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 2,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Xmjne7
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Watton, Esq.
WATTON LAW GROUP
311 South State Street, Suite 280
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 363-0130
E-mail: mwatton@wattongroup.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
CARSON LYNCH
1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (267) 930-1600
E-mail: ECiolko@carlsonlynch.com
BUMBLE BEE: Judges Votes to Rehear Class Certification Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the en banc 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals intends to clarify whether the
federal rules for class action litigation preclude the
certification of class actions in which more than a minimal number
of class members could turn out not to have suffered an injury.
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said in an order on Aug. 3 that the
circuit's judges had voted to rehear a controversial class
decertification decision from a divided three-judge panel in a case
alleging price-fixing in the market for packaged tuna fish. The
Aug. 3 order in Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative Inc v. Bumble
Bee Foods LLC vacated the panel's decision from last April, in
which the majority held that trial judges may not certify classes
that contain more than a minimal number of uninjured class
members.
The panel itself -- with Judges Andrew Kleinfeld and Patrick
Bumatay in the majority and Judge Andrew Hurwitz in dissent --
called for supplemental briefing on whether to rehear the case en
banc in an April 28 order. The panel judges asked plaintiffs,
defendants and amici to address whether Rule 23's predominance
requirement means that trial judges must be sure, before certifying
a class, that potentially uninjured class members make up no more
than a tiny percentage of the class.
This issue of class certification and uninjured class members, as
you know, has been roiling for years, including at the U.S. Supreme
Court in last term's TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez.
Broadly speaking, defendants contend that courts must require
plaintiffs to establish that all class members have claims before
the class can be certified. But there are a couple of different
theories beneath that broad umbrella -- one based on constitutional
standing to sue and the other rooted in class action procedural
rules.
In TransUnion, for instance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other
business groups called on the Supreme Court to preclude class
certification unless every class member can show Article III
standing. (The Supreme Court declined to go that far in its
TransUnion ruling in June, writing in a footnote that the decision
did not address "whether every class member must demonstrate
standing before a court certifies a class.")
In the tuna case at the 9th Circuit, by contrast, defendants
focused on the Rule 23 requirement that classwide issues must
predominate over individual issues in order for classes to be
certified. Specifically, tuna supplier defendants argued that
plaintiffs' own damages model showed that not every purchaser in
the three prospective classes overpaid because of suppliers'
alleged price-fixing. The percentage of uninjured class members,
according to defendants, could be 28% or more -- too high a number
for the trial judge to conclude that classwide issues
predominated.
The 9th Circuit majority agreed, citing rulings in which the 1st
and D.C. Circuits balked at the certification of classes with
significant numbers of uninjured class members, about 13% in the
D.C. case and 10% in the 1st Circuit. "While we do not set the
upper bound of what is de minimis, it's easy enough to tell that
28% would be out-of-bounds," wrote Bumatay in the majority opinion.
"If 28% of the class were uninjured, common questions of law or
fact would not be shared by substantially all the class members."
Class counsel said in their brief calling for en banc review that
the 9th Circuit majority opinion would improperly turn trial judges
into fact-finders. Trial judges, wrote plaintiffs lawyers from
Hausfeld and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz (among other
firms), must determine before class certification whether
plaintiffs have offered evidence -- including statistical models --
that can answer the question of whether class members were injured.
But judges aren't supposed to quantify the number of potentially
uninjured class members when plaintiffs and defendants dispute that
percentage, class counsel said. That's a merits decision for the
jury, they argued, not a class certification issue.
The remaining defendants in the class action, StarKist Co and
Dongwon Industries Co Ltd, argued in their supplemental brief that
the majority opinion merely aligned the 9th Circuit with the 1st
and D.C. Circuits in analogous antitrust class actions. "There is
no reason to grant en banc review to create a circuit conflict,"
wrote defense counsel from Latham & Watkins.
The class got lots of amicus support backing its call for en banc
review, including briefs from the public interest groups Impact
Fund and Public Citizen. Public Justice's brief provided a
particularly lucid explanation of how the 9th Circuit majority
seemed to have blurred the distinction between the court's role in
determining whether to certify a class and jury's ultimate role in
deciding if class members were harmed.
"The question whether a class member could have been injured by a
defendant's alleged misconduct is relevant to determining the
proper scope of a class definition," the Public Justice brief said.
"But whether members of a proposed class actually suffered injury
is an issue that must be resolved on the merits and is thus not
relevant to whether class certification is appropriate."
Plaintiffs lawyer Thomas Burt of Wolf Haldenstein said in an email
statement that his side is pleased the panel opinion was vacated
and looking forward to arguing before the en banc court. Defense
counsel Gregory Garre of Latham declined to comment.
There's a chance, of course, that the en banc hearing could go
terribly wrong for plaintiffs. Latham hinted in its supplemental
brief opposing en banc review that if the full court were to take
the case, defendants will likely raise Article III arguments,
citing decisions from the 2nd and 8th Circuits that suggest classes
cannot be certified unless every class member can show an injury.
As I mentioned, class action defendants are champing for the
Supreme Court to take up that issue.
If the 9th Circuit's en banc ruling creates a clear circuit split
on Article III standing and class certification, tuna could turn
out to be just what the defense bar ordered. [GN]
BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE: Blind Can't Access Website, Thompson Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYRONE THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE, INC., d/b/a THE BODY SHOP;
and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-06332 (C.D.
Cal., August 5, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The website,
https://www.thebodyshop.com/, allegedly contains access barriers
which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits
of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general
public through the website. These access barriers include, but not
limited to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text
equivalent; (b) empty links that contain no text; (c) redundant
links where adjacent links go to the same uniform resource location
(URL) address; and (d) linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc., doing business as The Body Shop, is a
company that manufactures and retails cosmetics products, with its
headquarters in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Binyamin Manoucheri, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
CABOT OIL: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Retirement System Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit entitled, Delaware County Emp. Ret. Sys. v.
Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., et. al., is pending.
In October 2020, a class action lawsuit styled Delaware County Emp.
Ret. Sys. v. Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., et. al., (U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania), was filed against Cabot,
Dan O. Dinges, its Chief Executive Officer, and Scott C. Schroeder,
its Chief Financial Officer, alleging that the company made
misleading statements in its periodic filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Exchange Act in violation
of Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiffs allege misstatements in the company's public filings
and disclosures over a number of years relating to the company's
potential liability for alleged environmental violations in
Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs allege that such misstatements caused a decline in
the price of the company's common stock when the company disclosed
in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019 two notices of violations from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection and an additional decline
when the company disclosed on June 15, 2020 the criminal charges
brought by the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania related to alleged violations of the Pennsylvania
Clean Streams Law, which prohibits discharge of industrial wastes.
The court appointed Delaware County Employees Retirement System to
represent the purported class on February 3, 2021.
In April 2021, the complaint was amended to include Phillip L.
Stalnaker, the company's Senior Vice President of Operations, as a
defendant. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, interest and
attorney's fees.
Also in October 2020, a shareholder derivative action styled Ezell
v. Dinges (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania),
was filed against Cabot, Messrs. Dinges and Schroeder and the
company's Board of Directors, for alleged securities violations
under Section 10(b) and Section 21D of the Exchange Act arising
from the same alleged misleading statements that form the basis of
the class action lawsuit described above.
In addition to the Exchange Act claims, the derivative actions also
allege claims based on breaches of fiduciary duty and statutory
contribution theories. On December 9, 2020, the Ezell case was
consolidated with a second derivative case with similar
allegations.
On February 25, 2021, the company filed a motion to transfer the
class action lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, in Houston, Texas, where the company's
headquarters is located.
On June 11, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class
action lawsuit on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations do not
meet the requirements for pleading a claim under Section 10(b) or
Section 20 of the Exchange Act.
On June 22, 2021, the company's motion to transfer the class action
lawsuit to the Southern District of Texas was granted.
Pursuant to the prior agreement of the parties, the consolidated
derivative case discussed in the preceding paragraph was also
transferred to the Southern District of Texas. The motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit is pending.
Cabot Oil said, "We intend to vigorously defend the class action
and derivative lawsuits."
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation is an
independent oil and gas company that develops, exploits, and
explores oil and gas properties located in North America.
CAFE H INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cuanetl Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO CUANETL; and FRANCISO HUERTERO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAFE H INC. d/b/a
CASA ENRIQUE; ONE KID CORPORATION, d/b/a CAFE HENRI; COSME AGUILAR;
LUIS AGUILAR; and WINSTON KULOK, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04316
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.
CAFE H INC. d/b/a CASA ENRIQUE owns and operates a restaurant in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: Longo Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LONGO, JUSTIN
LONGO, LOIS SPATZ, EAVEN SPATZ, RAINA POMEROY AND MAXWELL NASSAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., and BYL COLLECTION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
8:20-cv-02651-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs ask this Court to provide equitable and monetary
relief for fees for services the Defendant Campus Advantage did not
and could safely provide because of the dangers of COVID-19.
Plaintiff Eaven Spatz perhaps said it best when she begged Campus
Advantage on March 17, 2020 to act "humanely in these trying times
and offer either a heavy discount or option to terminate the
lease." The goal of this lawsuit is to achieve that equitable
goal.
The Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members were college students and
residents (or guarantors for residents) at Campus Advantage's
Florida Student Properties that are private dorm-like student
housing complexes. Student Plaintiffs and Class Members vacated
Campus Advantage's Florida Student Properties after their colleges
shut down in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Campus Advantage's Florida Student Properties are high-density
student housing complexes for college students. They offer a
comprehensive college-student housing experience by offering
residents a college dormitory life with closely packed shared
living quarters, on-site group study lounge, "organized resident
activities through our Students First Residence Life program," free
printing, shuttle services to the campus, swimming pools, game
rooms, fitness centers and "sophisticated roommate matching
program." Campus Advantage's advertising and marketing targets
college students across the state.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Aug. 2 , 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ADJ87M at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM , PLLC
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2340
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
E-mail: Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
CAPITAL ONE: Securities Suit Over Cybersecurity Incident Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a securities putative class action suit related
to the Cybersecurity Incident.
On July 29, 2019, the company announced that on March 22 and 23,
2019 an outside individual gained unauthorized access to our
systems.
This individual obtained certain types of personal information
relating to people who had applied for the company's credit card
products and to its credit card customers (the "Cybersecurity
Incident").
As a result of the Cybersecurity Incident, we are subject to
numerous legal proceedings and other inquiries and could be the
subject of additional proceedings and inquiries in the future.
The Company and certain officers have also been named as defendants
in a putative class action pending in the MDL alleging violations
of certain federal securities laws in connection with statements
and alleged omissions in securities filings relating to our
information security standards and practices.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Capital One securities from July
23, 2015 to July 29, 2019, as well as unspecified monetary damages,
costs and other relief.
Capital One Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding
company for the Capital One Bank (USA), National Association; and
Capital One, National Association, which provides various financial
products and services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through three segments: Credit Card, Consumer
Banking, and Commercial Banking. Capital One Financial Corporation
was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
CAPTAIN JOHN'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arabia-Andrews Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE ARABIA-ANDREWS and TRICIA HARMON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPTAIN
JOHN'S RESTAURANT, INC., ELAINE BROWN, and ANDY BROWN, Defendants,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00868-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as server.
CAPTAIN JOHN'S RESTAURANT, INC. operates and manages seafood
restaurants throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jared K. Cook, Esq.
VAHEY LAW OFFICES, PLLC
144 Exchange Boulevard, Suite 400
Rochester, New York 14614
Telephone: (585) 262-5130
E-mail: jcook@vaheylaw.com
-and-
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Galen Baynes, Esq.
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
baynes@pechmanlaw.com
CARLOTZ INC: Faces Turk Suit Over 13.4% Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TURK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARLOTZ, INC., MICHAEL W. BOR, and THOMAS W.
STOLTZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-06627 (S.D.N.Y., August 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about CarLotz's business, operations, and
prospects with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in order
to trade CarLotz securities at artificially inflated prices between
December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants
made material misrepresentations concerning the following: (1)
that, due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal
2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower
processing and higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the
company's gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (3)
that, to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner
responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the company
was offering aggressive pricing; (4) that, as a result, CarLotz’s
gross profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (5) that this
company's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause
consignments to the company due to market conditions, including
increasing wholesale prices; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis, the suit alleges.
When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $0.79, or
8.5%, to close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume. The stock price continued to fell $0.70, or
13.4%, to close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021, damaging
investors.
CarLotz, Inc. is a company that operates as a used vehicle
consignment and retail remarketing business, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Melissa G. Muller, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
mmuller@zlk.com
CASA SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Hook IPO Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the Donald Hook IPO suit, is still pending.
On August 9, 2019, Hook filed a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, Donald Hook, et al., v. Casa Systems, Inc. et al., Index
No. 654548/2019, against the same defendants named in the Shen and
Baig matters.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
our common stock in and/or traceable to the company's initial
public offering or IPO and generally alleges that (i) each of the
defendants violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act because documents related to the company's IPO
including its registration statement and prospectus were materially
misleading by containing untrue statements of material fact and/or
omitting to state material facts necessary to make such statements
not misleading and (ii) the individual defendants and Summit
Partners acted as controlling persons within the meaning and in
violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act.
On November 22, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
contains substantially similar allegations as the initial
complaint, described above, and asserts claims for violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. Plaintiff seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including
counsel and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, disgorgement, and equitable and injunctive relief.
On January 21, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which remains pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.
CASA SYSTEMS: Dismissal of Joined Shen & Baig Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Casa Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that that plaintiffs in the
consolidated Shen v. Chen et al. and Baig v. Chen et al. suit,
filed notice of appeal.
On May 29, 2019, John Shen filed a putative shareholder class
action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Essex
County, John Shen v. Casa Systems, Inc, et al., Civil Action No.
1977CV00787, against the company; certain of its current and former
executive officers and directors; Summit Partners, the company's
largest investor; and the underwriters from the company's December
15, 2017, initial public offering, or IPO.
On July 3, 2019, Mirza R. Baig filed a similar putative shareholder
class action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court of Essex
County, Mirza R. Baig v. Casa Systems, Inc., Civil Action No.
1977CV00961, against the same defendants.
Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion filed on July 26, 2019, and accepted
September 3, 2019, the two matters were consolidated and
transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts
Superior Court, Suffolk County, John Shen v. Casa Systems, Inc, et
al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-03203-BLS2 and Mirza R. Baig v. Casa
Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-CV-03204-BLS2.
The complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all purchasers
of our common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO.
The complaints generally alleged that (i) each of the defendants
violated Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, because documents
related to the IPO, including our registration statement and
prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.
On November 12, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder class
action complaint, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our
common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO, which contained
substantially similar allegations and asserted the same claims as
the two initial complaints, described above.
Plaintiffs sought, among other things compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, and equitable and injunctive relief.
On January 14, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint with prejudice.
On January 12, 2021, the court granted the motions to dismiss.
On February 22, 2021, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal.
The appeal has not yet been docketed by the appellate court, and no
filing has been made.
Casa Systems, Inc., incorporated on February 28, 2003, provides
software-centric infrastructure solutions. In addition, the Company
offers solutions for next-generation distributed and virtualized
architectures in cable operator, fixed telecom and wireless
networks. Its products include axyom software platform, delivery
platforms, multi-service applications, capacity expansion products.
The company is based in Andover, Massachusetts.
CATALYST FAMILY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Silva Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA SILVAS, similarly on behalf of herself and all situated, v.
CATALYST FAMILY, INC, d.b.a. CATALYST KIDS, a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21CV385134
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 3, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages and minimum wages, and
failed to provide meal and rest periods in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff is as a non-exempt employee of the Defendants, with
duties including cooking, cleaning, feeding children and unloading
shipments. She worked for the Defendants from July of 2006 through
the present.
Catalyst provides child care services throughout the state of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Diego Aviles, Esq.
Sara Ehsani-Nia, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshjre Boulevard, Suite 500
Beverly Hills, CA 9o211
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-4705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
diego@tomorrowlaw.com
sara@tomorrowlaw.com
CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE: Suit Alleges WARN Violation Over Mass Layoff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TYSON ROMERO on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-01124-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 2, 2021) is a class action
complaint alleging violation of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).
On August 2, 2021 and within 90 days of that date, the Defendant
terminated the employment of over 300 employees without notice.
Plaintiff Romero was an employee of CEHE until August 2, 2021 when
he and others were suddenly terminated without notice.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and other
similarly situated former employees who worked for the Defendant
and who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the
foreseeable result of, the plant closing or mass layoff ordered by
Defendant beginning on August 2, 2021 and within 90 days of that
date, and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of
their terminations by the Defendant, as required by the WARN Act.
Until he was terminated on August 2, 2021, Plaintiff Tyson Romero
was employed by CEHE for seven years, most recently in its
financial planning department. At the time of his termination, the
Plaintiff reported to Defendant's headquarters located at 4021
South 700 East, Salt Lake City, Utah.
CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION, INC. is a higher
education institution with its corporate headquarters located at
4021 South 700 East, Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
LOIZIDES, P.A.
1225 King Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 654-0248
Facsimile: (302) 654-0728
E-mail: loizides@loizides.com
- and -
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com
rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
CHARLOTTE, NC: Faces Protesters' Suit Over Police Officers' Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hank Lee and Lana Harris, writing for WCNC Charlotte, report that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against the city of Charlotte for
Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers' actions during protests last
summer in Uptown Charlotte.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of protesters who said they were
attacked by officers on June 2, 2020, during a protest following
the murder of George Floyd. Protesters claimed they were trapped by
officers in a parking garage. In total, there are about 50
plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs allege they were trapped at College and 4th Street
while CMPD officers threw flashbangs, tear gas, and shot rubber and
pepper pellets at them from above on a parking deck while trying to
protest peacefully.
"CMPD had committed a planned deliberate attack on those who dared
challenge police violence," Timothy Emry with The Emry Law Firm
said.
Emry is one of several lawyers now representing the plaintiffs.
"There are individual police officers who planned and orchestrated
this kettling, this trapping, teargassing, hitting with pepper
bullets and rubber bullets," said Lauren Newton, a lawyer with
Charles G. Monnett III & Associates.
One officer could be heard talking about it on a body cam.
"We're going to push their a-- straight up 4th," an unidentified
law enforcement official can be heard in one of the videos. "As
soon as they get up on 4th -- because we have them bottlenecked now
-- Rory's squad is going to step out and hammer their a--. When
they start running down, Dancer squad is going to hammer their
a-- with gas."
The official goes on to say, "Wave goodbye. They're all about to
gas gassed."
"They led us into an ambush," said Jonathan Quintero, one of the
plaintiffs.
Quintero said he never expected it to happen.
"I actually felt really safe," Quintero said. "I thought, what
could possibly go on out here with all these police escorting us?"
Plaintiffs Katie Rothweiler and Chantel Kennedy said they were both
injured, Rothweiler with a nonlethal round.
"I was running across the street away from the situation and I got
shot in the back of the head," Rothweiler said.
"Me and my brother were broken apart because we were holding hands,
and I was knocked down and I was trampled," Kennedy said.
CMPD released body camera footage from the incident last August.
"I saw strollers get knocked over, older people who had trouble
walking already get knocked over and trampled, it was just
chaotic," plaintiff Corey Newton said.
Newton said he feels worse because he helped organize the event and
told people it would be peaceful.
"I feel incredibly bad, I do, because that was not my intention,"
Newton said.
CMPD has since banned the use of tear gas and revised several
policies for protest response, but the plaintiffs say that's not
good enough.
"Someone needs to be held accountable," Newton said.
A CMPD spokesperson said they have not yet reviewed this lawsuit,
and cannot give additional comment as this matter will be before
the court.
WCNC Charlotte reached out to the City of Charlotte for a response
and has not yet heard back.
Newton said there were roughly 300-400 people out there who may
have also been impacted who are welcome to join in on the
class-action suit. [GN]
CHELSEA TRADING: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Trading And
Import Co. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Chelsea Trading
And Import Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-06724 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chelsea Trading and Import Corp. is located in Miami Beach, Florida
and is part of the Furniture and Home Furnishing Merchant
Wholesalers Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CHEMED CORP: Settlement in Lax Class Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement in Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and
Does 1 through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case
Number 18CV338652.
Alfred Lax, a former employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company
("RRSC") filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County
Superior Court in November of 2018 alleging (1) failure to provide
or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.
Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as
all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement in August 2020 to
resolve the allegations, for a settlement amount of $2.6 million
plus employment taxes.
The settlement includes technicians in its Menlo Park and Bristol
locations.
The settlement was recorded in the third quarter of 2020.
Final approval of the settlement was granted in the first quarter
of 2021 and the settlement was paid
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CITGO PETROLEUM: Denies Benefits, Citgo Plan Participants Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Urlaub and Mark Pellegrini on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, the
Benefit Plans Committee, the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Salaried
Employees' Pension Plan, and the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Hourly
Employees' Pension Plan Case No. 1:21-cv-04133 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 3,
2021) is a civil enforcement action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), concerning
Defendants' violations of ERISA's actuarial equivalence,
anti-forfeiture, and joint and survivor annuity requirements with
respect to the Citgo Plan.
The Plaintiffs and the Class are vested participants in the Citgo
Plan, which denies them their full ERISA-protected pension
benefits. Specifically, Plaintiffs and Class members receive
pension benefits in the form of a joint and survivor annuity -- a
benefit that pays an annuity both to the participant for his life
and for the life of the participant's surviving spouse.
In determining the amount of Plaintiffs' and Class members' joint
and survivor annuities, however, Defendants employed actuarial
assumptions 50 years out of date. That means Plaintiffs and Class
members receive less than the "actuarial equivalent" of their
vested accrued benefit, contrary to ERISA, says the suit.
Generally, a participant's pension benefit is expressed as a single
life annuity, meaning it pays a monthly benefit to the participant
for his entire life (i.e., from the time he retires until his
death).
Plaintiff Urlaub resides in this District and is a participant in
the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Salaried Employees' Pension Plan.
He worked for Citgo Petroleum Corporation for nine years, where he
served as a project engineer and a project manager.
Plaintiff Pellegrini resides in this District and is a participant
in the Citgo Petroleum Corporation Hourly Employees' Pension Plan.
He worked at the Lemont Refinery for 32 years, which in 1997 became
owned and operated by Citgo Petroleum Corporation.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation is a major oil company that refines,
transports, and markets motor fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals,
and other industrial products. It is headquartered in Houston,
Texas and does extensive business throughout the country,
maintaining an extensive nationwide network of pipelines and
selling gasoline at thousands of gas stations around the country
(including dozens within this District).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
Daniel J. Sutter, Esq.
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com
mbortscheller@cohemilstein.com
dsutter@cohenmilstein.com
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Todd Jackson, Esq.
Nina Wasow, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW, LLP
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
E-mail: todd@feinbergjackson.com
nina@feinbergjackson.com
- and -
Peter K. Stris, Esq.
Rachana A. Pathak, Esq.
Victor O'Connell, Esq.
John Stokes, Esq.
STRIS & MAHER LLP
777 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 995-6800
Facsimile: (213) 261-0299
- and -
Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
University of San Diego Law School
5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 260-2347
Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
CLOUDERA INC: Palkon Balks at Merger Deal With Investment Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS PALKON v. CLOUDERA, INC., GARY HU, KEVIN KLAUSMEYER, MICHAEL
A. STANKEY, PETER FENTON, JESSE A. LYNN, ROSEMARY SCHOOLER, ROBERT
BEARDEN, and PAUL CORMIER, Case No. 5:21-cv-06040 (N.D. Cal., Aug.
5, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against Cloudera,
Inc. and the members of Cloudera's Board of Directors for their
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and
to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Cloudera will be acquired by investment funds advised by Clayton,
Dubilier & Rice, LLC (CDR) and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P.
(KKR), through their subsidiaries Sky Parent Inc. and Project Sky
Merger Sub Inc.
On June 1, 2021, Cloudera issued a press release announcing that it
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 1,
2021. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Cloudera
stockholder will receive $16.00 in cash for each share of Cloudera
common stock they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at
approximately $5.3 billion.
On July 19, 2021, Cloudera filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that
Cloudera stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning,
among other things the Company's financial projections.
In short, unless remedied, Cloudera's public stockholders will be
irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material
misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a
sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed
Transaction. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations
are cured, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
continuous stockholder of Cloudera.
CDR is a private investment firm with offices located in New York
and London. Since inception, CDR has managed the investment of more
than $35 billion in 100 companies with an aggregate transaction
value of more than $150 billion.
KKR is a leading global investment firm that offers alternative
asset management and capital markets and insurance solutions. KKR
sponsors investment funds that invest in private equity, credit and
real assets and has strategic partners that manage hedge funds.
KKR's insurance subsidiaries offer retirement, life and reinsurance
products under the management of The Global Atlantic Financial
Group.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. No. 725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and -
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
COHNREZNICK LLP: Faces Class Action in New York Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Vittorio, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Advisory
firm CohnReznick LLP faces a potential class action over a data
breach that allegedly exposed the personal information of a client
firm's customers.
The lawsuit, filed on Aug. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleges that customers of Genesis
Corp. were notified of a data breach that occurred in early 2021.
CohnReznick advises the company on tax preparation, according to
the complaint.
The suit accuses CohnReznick of failing to safeguard its clients'
data, in violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act and other
legal standards.[GN]
COINBASE GLOBAL: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Thompson, writing for CoinGeek, reports that you have until
September 20, 2021, to join the class action lawsuit against
Coinbase. The lawsuit is being filed by Portnoy Law Firm and claims
that Coinbase's registration statement and the prospectus it filed
to go public were misleading and resulted in significant damages to
$COIN investors.
"It is alleged in this complaint that the registration statement
and prospectus that was used to effectuate Coinbase's Offering were
misleading and false and omitted to state that, at the time of the
Offering: (1) Coinbase required a sizeable cash injection; (2)
Coinbase was susceptible to service-level disruptions, which were
increasingly likely to occur, as Coinbase scaled its services to a
larger user base; and (3) the positive statements about the
Coinbase's business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable
basis and/or were materially misleading," according to Lesley F.
Portnoy, Esq the founding partner of Portnoy law.
In other words, the class action lawsuit claims that Coinbase was
not truthful about the financial health of the company and the
scalability of its platform. Portnoy believes this is evident
because Coinbase did not mention its plans to sell $1.25 billion
worth of bonds in May, and the continual outages the platform
experienced. If Coinbase had mentioned that it was looking for a
cash injection via a bond sale and was honest about the performance
of its platform, then $COIN may have not had as high of a valuation
as it did when it debuted on the Nasdaq Stock Exchange.
"Coinbase undermined its representations in the Offering Materials
released on May 17, 2021, that Coinbase's existing cash and cash
equivalents were sufficient, by announcing plans to raise capital
in the form of a convertible bond sale. Coinbase revealed, on May
19, 2021, technical problems experienced by users on its platform,
including "delays . . . due to network congestion" effecting "those
who want to get their money out," said Portnoy.
The Coinbase IPO
Coinbase ($COIN) went public on the Nasdaq stock exchange on April
14th at roughly $380 per share; at that price level, Coinbase had a
valuation of about $100.3 billion. However, the price of $COIN
continually dropped, reaching a low of $220.61–this means that
Coinbase shed 42% of its value in a little less than 3 months.
This has caused investors to experience significant damages,
damages that Portnoy Law believes could have been prevented if
Coinbase was honest about its financial status and platform
performance in its registration statement and prospectus.
As of press time, $COIN is trading at $233.79 and has a market cap
of $49.4 billion. [GN]
CONCHO RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of September 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Concho Resources Inc. ("Concho" or the
"Company") (Other OTC: CXO) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Concho securities
between February 2, 2018 and July 21, 2019, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 28, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
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.
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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Concho 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 & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
CONCHO RESOURCES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Aug. 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Concho Resources Inc. ("Concho" or the "Company") (NYSE: CXO)
common stock between February 21, 2018 and July 31, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Concho investors have until September 28,
2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Concho investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
In 2018, Concho planned and constructed the Dominator Project
("Dominator") located in the Permian Basin. It consisted of 23
wells.
On July 31, 2019, Concho revealed the wells at Dominator were
spaced "too tight," leading the Company to reduce its active rig
count to 18 (down from 33 in the first quarter of 2019) to avoid
overshooting budgets.
On this news, Concho's stock price fell 22% per share on August 1,
2019, thereby injuring investors.
ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) acquired Concho in January 2021 and is
also named as a defendant in the complaint.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the well spacing at Dominator was aggressive and highly
risky, and premised on no reasonable basis to believe it would work
as intended; (2) 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; (3) it was
known or recklessly disregarded that any measures to mitigate well
spacing risks were non-existent and or/impossible; (4) 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; (5) it would
take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts of the widespread well
spacing failure; and (6) 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 Concho securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
CORMEDIX INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The CorMedix class action lawsuit charges CorMedix Inc. (NASDAQ:
CRMD) and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers
of CorMedix securities between July 8, 2020 and May 13, 2021,
inclusive ("Class Period"). The CorMedix class action lawsuit --
Patrick v. CorMedix Inc., No. 21-cv-14020 -- was commenced on July
22, 2021 in the District of New Jersey.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the CorMedix class action
lawsuit, you can 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 CorMedix class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than September 20, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The CorMedix class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) deficiencies existed
with respect to CorMedix's lead product candidate DefenCath's
manufacturing process and/or at the facility responsible for
manufacturing DefenCath; (ii) in light of the foregoing
deficiencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was
unlikely to approve the DefenCath New Drug Application ("NDA") for
catheter-related bloodstream infections ("CRBSIs") in its present
form; (iii) defendants had downplayed the true scope of the
deficiencies with DefenCath's manufacturing process and/or at the
facility responsible for manufacturing DefenCath; and (iv) as a
result, CorMedix's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On March 1, 2021, CorMedix issued a press release "announc[ing]
that the [FDA] cannot approve the [NDA] for DefenCath . . . in its
present form." CorMedix informed investors that the "FDA noted
concerns at the third-party manufacturing facility after a review
of records requested by FDA and provided by the manufacturing
facility"; that the "FDA did not specify the issues and CorMedix
intends to work with the manufacturing facility to develop a plan
for resolution when FDA informs the facility of the specific
concerns"; that, "[w]hen we are informed of the issues, we will
schedule an investor conference call to provide an update on our
expected timeline for resolution"; and that "[a]dditionally, 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 nearly
40%.
Then, on April 14, 2021, CorMedix announced that it would have to
take additional steps to meet the FDA's requirements for
DefenCath's manufacturing process, including "[a]ddressing [the]
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 more than
15%.
Finally, 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 [the] FDA." After an analyst pressed for
clearer information on DefenCath's manufacturing deficiencies on a
conference call held that same day, CorMedix's Executive Vice
President and General Counsel, defendant Phoebe Mounts, disclosed
among other things that "there are times when there may be
unexpected results obtained"; that the FDA "expect[s] us 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"; that "sterility is a
very important part of that process," as well as "the accuracy in
making sure the right volume of DefenCath is loaded into the
vials"; that "we're talking about thousands of vials during the
manufacturing run"; that CorMedix must "generat[e] a lot of data to
make sure that . . . all the equipment has been qualified for the
intended use and every step in the manufacturing process has been
qualified"; that "th[e] process needs to be very robust, [and]
needs to be reproducible"; and that "the burden is on the
manufacturer to demonstrate that the facility can do that process
reducibly and generate the required product for commercial
distribution." On this news, CorMedix's stock price fell an
additional 20%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased CorMedix
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the CorMedix 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 CorMedix class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the CorMedix class action lawsuit. An investor's ability
to share in any potential future recovery of the CorMedix 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]
COURTESY TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Wages, Castillo Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO CASTILLO, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COURTESY TRANSPORT & TOWING, INC.,
a California corporation; HADLEY TOWING EQUIPMENT, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21NWCV00500 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 3, 2021)
brings this complaint to seek for relief and judgment against the
Defendant pursuant to the California Labor Code Section 2698.
The Plaintiff, who has worked as a non-exempt tow truck driver,
alleges that the Defendants did not pay him and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees all wages for all hours they have
worked, including minimum wages and overtime wages. Allegedly, the
Defendants failed to provide them with meal periods and rest
periods and/or payment of one additional hour of pay at their
regular rate of pay for not receiving uninterrupted meal periods
and missed break.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants failed to reimburse
them for all expenses or losses incurred in the direct consequence
of the discharge of the employee's work duties, failed to maintain
accurate and complete records of their hours worked, and failed to
provide them with itemized accurate wage statements.
On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff seeks monetary relief against the
Defendant to recover civil penalties as well as interest,
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
The Corporate Defendants operate as tow truck companies offering a
full range of tow services throughout California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yoonis Han, Esq.
Sam Kim, Esq.
VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
841 Apollo St. Suite 340
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (424) 320-2000
Fax: (424) 221-5010
E-mail: yhan@verumlg.com
skim@verumlg.com
CURRENEX INC: Faces Edmar Financial Suit Over Rig Auctions Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDMAR FINANCIAL COMPANY, LLC, and IRISH BLUE & GOLD, INC. v.
CURRENEX, INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, HC TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-5,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06598 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 4, 2021) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiffs and class members about a long-running
scheme to rig auctions for foreign exchange (FX) transactions.
Defendant Currenex operates an Electronic Communication Network
(ECN) where banks, corporations, hedge funds, investors, and other
traders engage in FX transactions. The Plaintiffs and members of
the class often traded on Currenex via its Executable Streaming
Prices Trading Model (the Currenex Platform). To trade over the
Platform, market participants can submit a "bid" price (the level
they were willing to buy) or an "ask" price (the level at which
they are willing to sell). Other participants on the Platform can
accept these quotes, consummating a trade. Billions of dollars' of
FX transactions are executed in this way on Currenex each day, says
the suit.
A fundamental feature of an ECN is the system by which bids and
offers are matched to execute trades. The industry standard for
matching bids and asks is called FIFO, which stands for first in,
first out. FIFO matching gives priority to whichever customer
submits the first quote at the best price. FIFO thus encourages
price competition.
According to the complaint, at various times during the class
period, Currenex expressly represented to Plaintiffs and class
members that the Platform's matching algorithm operated on a FIFO
basis. For instance, in 2011, Currenex represented that its
Platform had a "matching engine with 'first in, first out' (FIFO)
prioritizing." And again in 2015 Currenex represented: "The
matching priority is based on a 'first in, first out' basis."
These (and other) alleged representations and omissions were in
line with the reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs and class
members that Currenex would be using the FIFO industry standard.
When Currenex stayed silent, or spoke about any aspect of its
Platform without disclosing a different matching system, that also
confirmed the understanding that the Platform was using FIFO.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and members of the class, instead of
operating a true FIFO order book, Currenex operated a rigged
auction. Currenex entered into secret priority agreements with
certain privileged liquidity providers—State Street, Goldman
Sachs, HC Technologies, and the Doe Defendants (together, the
"Trading Defendants") -- under which the Trading Defendants could
jump in line and consummate a trade without entering a competing
quote, added the suit.
Under these super-priority agreements, transactions were funneled
to the Trading Defendants even if they were late to the party, and
only submitted quotes that matched what others had previously
provided. Currenex granted this secret power to incentivize the
Trading Defendants to trade over the Platform, rather than through
other venues. After it was acquired by State Street in 2007,
Currenex continued to grant these priorities in order to funnel
profits and opportunities to its new corporate parent.
With these secret agreements in place, the Trading Defendants'
incentive to compete for trades was suppressed or removed entirely.
As a result, prices and spreads on Currenex became artificial, and
Plaintiffs and members of the class paid too much when buying, and
received too little when selling.
The Plaintiffs were also harmed by the lost opportunity to be
price-makers. Because the Trading Defendants were allowed to jump
to the front of the line, they were able to secure business and
profits that should have been given to Plaintiffs and class members
instead, the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiffs were also harmed by lost informational advantages.
Knowing what market participants are willing to pay (a form of
"price discovery") is a valuable advantage. This advantage was
magnified for those who were matched and thus executed
transactions. As the Currenex algorithm funneled an artificial
amount of business to the Trading Defendants, so too was the
Trading Defendants' informational advantage artificially widened
its express representations concerning its use of FIFO constituted
affirmative fraud.
The abandonment of FIFO also breached Currenex's implied duty of
good faith and fair dealing to its contractual counterparties
(Plaintiffs and class members), and it unjustly enriched the
Trading Defendants. The corruption of the Currenex Platform also
violated the federal RICO Act. And the secret arrangements also
constituted illegal agreements in restraint of trade, creating
artificial prices in violation of the antitrust laws.
The Plaintiffs bring this action under Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 and 26, to recover treble
damages and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
against Defendants for the injuries to Plaintiffs and the class
arising from Defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1. Plaintiffs also bring this action under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")
Act.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Ruddy, Esq.
RUDDY GREGORY, PLLC
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
1225 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 797-0762
Facsimile: (202) 318-0543
E-mail: mruddy@ruddylaw.com
- and -
Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
Christopher M. Seck, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
christopherseck@quinnemanuel.com
DICKEY'S BARBECUE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that you have to love
"gotcha" class actions.
Let's say you have the misfortune of NOT following TCPAWorld. Then
you might not have even heard about the new Florida "mini-TCPA"
until it was too late.
Case in probable point.
The good folks at Dickey's Barbecue Restaurants - purveyors of fine
slabs of slathered meat -are facing a suit under Fla. Stat. Sec.
501.059, as amended by Senate Bill No. 1120.
As TCPAWorld readers know–and knew ahead of time - the bill
became effective on July 1, 2021. Just in time to trigger liability
for Fourth-of-July related messages like these:
My mouth is heavily watering right now.
But that's not the point. These messages were sent just a handful
of days into the new Florida mini-TCPA's amended existence. And now
Dickey's is facing trouble.
In a new suit filed July 30, 2021, a consumer in Florida is suing
Dickey's claiming that these - and other - text messages violated
the amended Florida robocall bill. Complaint here: Dickey's Florida
Suit
According to the Complaint the Plaintiff never provided express
written consent to receive the messages and the messages were sent
by a system that "automatically selected" the Plaintiff's number.
(Let's hope the good folks at Dickey's were using a human selection
text platform!)
The class is focused on the use of a specific text platform–as
these new Florida cases often will be:
All persons in Florida who, (1) were sent a telephonic sales call
regarding Defendant's goods and/or services, (2) using the same
equipment or type of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff.
Notably, the class is overly broad since it does not exclude
individuals that provided express written consent. But we'll see if
the claim goes anywhere.
The suit against Dickey's was filed by Manny Hiarldo - a guy who
has been making a lot of noise in TCPAWorld recently. But he's no
longer alone in filing litigation under the Florida mini-TCPA.
Just on Aug. 2–this complaint Idental -- was filed in Florida,
making the first state suit brought by Shamis & Gentile and Scott
Edelsberg. Tip of the iceberg, folks. [GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges DiDi Global, Inc. (NYSE: DIDI) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.
Class Period: June 30, 2021 – July 21, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 7, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/DIDI
Contact An Attorney Now: DIDI@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
DiDi Global, Inc. (DIDI) Securities Class Actions:
The suits allege that DiDi's IPO materials contained misleading
statements about (1) DiDi's problem of collecting personal
information in violation of People's Republic of China ("PRC") laws
and regulations, (2) the likelihood that DiDi's app, DiDi Chuxing
(Travel), would face imminent cybersecurity review by the
Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC"), and as a result (3) the
CAC would require all PRC app stores to remove DiDi Chuxing.
Within days of closing the IPO, investors began to learn the truth
through a series of announcements.
On July 2, 2021, DiDi disclosed the CAC launched an investigation
into the company to protect national security and the public
interest and required it to suspend new user registrations in
China.
On July 4, 2021, the company announced the CAC determined the
company's DiDi Chuxing app has the problem of collecting personal
information in violation of PRC laws and regulations and ordered
app stores to take down the app in China.
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that, three
months before the IPO, the CAC asked DiDi to postpone the offering
because of national security concerns and to conduct a thorough
self-examination of its network security.
Then, on July 22, 2021 Bloomberg reported PRC regulators are
considering levying fines against DiDi, suspending company
operations, and possibly forcing the delisting or withdrawal of
DiDi's U.S. shares.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving DiDi failed to
disclose known regulatory risks," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a DiDi investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding DiDi
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email mailto:DIDI@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895
https://www.hbsslaw.com [GN]
ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER: Discloses Private Reading Info, Kain Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA KAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE ECONOMIST NEWSPAPER NA, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-11807-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant TEN rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
detailed information about Plaintiff's The Economist newspaper
subscription to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed her information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of
unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise
disclosing Plaintiff's Private Reading Information (defined below)
during the relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period, TEN violated
Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the "PPPA").
Documented evidence confirms these facts. For example, a list
broker, NextMark, Inc., offers to provide renters access to the
mailing list titled "The Economist Mailing List", which contains
the Private Reading Information of 124,172 of TEN's active U.S.
subscribers at a base price of "$155.00/M [per thousand]."
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against
TEN for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers'
Private Reading Information in violation of the PPPA, says the
suit.
To supplement its revenues, TEN rents, exchanges, or otherwise
discloses its customers' information—including their full names,
titles of publications subscribed to, and home addresses
(collectively "Private Reading Information"), as well as myriad
other categories of individualized data and demographic information
such as age, gender, and income -- to data aggregators, data
appenders, data cooperatives, and other third parties without the
written consent of its customers, the Plaintiff contends.
Plaintiff Kain is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Michigan and resides in Dearborn, Michigan. The Plaintiff was a
subscriber to The Economist newspaper, including during the
relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period. The Economist newspaper is
published by TEN.
Economist Newspaper was founded in 1989. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of books.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
ELITE STONE: Saca et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEOVANNY SACA and JESSICA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE STONE FABRICATIONS,
INC. and AVNI AHMETAJ, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06601 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform primary
duties as stone workers, marble workers, and other miscellaneous
duties. Saca was employed from in or around June 2018 until in or
around July 2018, while Torres was employed form in or around June
2018 until in or around July 2018.
The Plaintiffs allege that although they regularly worked over 40
hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Defendants also failed to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location
of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to keep accurate payroll records,
the Plaintiffs add.
Elite Stone Fabrications, Inc. manufactures stones. Avni Ahmetaj
owns and operates Elite Stone. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
EMPORIUM LEATHER: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Emporium Leather
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Emporium
Leather Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06725 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Emporium Leather Company, Inc. doing business as Royce Leather --
http://www.royce.us/-- is located in Secaucus, New Jersey States
and is part of the Other Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
EQUITABLE ACCEPTANCE: Judge Approves Student Loan Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Russell Lee, writing for Inner City Press, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed against Equitable Acceptance
Corporation for fraudulently promising loan forgiveness of student
loans, then not coming through.
On August 3, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald held a final fairness hearing.
Inner City Press covered it.
Plaintiffs' counsel proposed a settlement of $1 million, and
described how people had been notified, including via text
message.
Otherwise, they said, the defendant might not pay anything. Judge
Buchwald agreed and approved the settlement.
The case is Williams et al v. Equitable Acceptance Corporation et
al., 18-cv-7537 (Buchwald) [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Class Action Over 2020 Presidential Election Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Riccardi, writing for Denver Post, reports that a federal
magistrate on Aug. 4 levied penalties against two Colorado
attorneys for filing a class-action lawsuit that alleged the 2020
presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump.
The now-dismissed suit relied on baseless conspiracy theories
spread by the former president and his supporters. It named elected
officials in four swing states, Facebook, the company's founder
Mark Zuckerberg and Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems, whose
election machines were at the center of some of the most fevered
speculation.
Magistrate Judge N. Reid Nureiter ruled that the two attorneys who
filed the lawsuit must pay the legal fees of the defendants.
"The lawsuit put into or repeated into the public record highly
inflammatory and damaging allegations that could have put
individuals' safety in danger," Nureiter wrote, noting the Jan. 6
insurrection was spurred by the lies it repeated, as were threats
against election and Dominion officials. "Doing so without a valid
legal basis or serious independent personal investigation into the
facts was the height of recklessness."
There are few recourses against false lawsuits other than
penalizing lawyers for filing them. Repeated audits and recounts
found no significant fraud in the presidential election. Even
Trump's own administration said the election was clean.
That did not stop Trump and his allies from filing dozens of suits
and continuing to insist the contest was stolen from him, a lie
that inspired the crowds that stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
In the end, Trump and his allies lost more than 50 of the election
lawsuits.
The lawyers in the Colorado case, Gary D. Fielder and Ernest J.
Walker, were not connected with other Trump lawyers -- including
Sidney Powell, who is one of multiple Trump-backing attorneys who
face possible sanctions for an unsuccessful lawsuit challenging the
election results in Michigan.
Fielder and Walker said during a court hearing last month that they
were trying to protect democracy. [GN]
FFG BAGEL: Faces Perera Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MAYRION PERERA, individually and in behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FFG BAGEL CORP. and CONCETTA
COSTANZO, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04356
(E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery man
approximately from February 20, 2016 until August 17, 2019.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees the applicable minimum wage;
-- The Defendants failed to maintain accurate and sufficient
records;
-- The Defendants failed to post or keep posted notices
explaining the minimum wage rights of employees under the FLSA and
NYLL;
-- The Defendant failed to provide him with a notice and with
a wage statement with each payment; and
-- The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff by firing
him after knowing that she had sued another business, All Star
Cafe.
FFG Bagel Corp. is a full-service restaurant. Concetta Constanzo
was an owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Tel: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
FLAT ROOF SPECIALIST: Faces Herrick Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE FLAT ROOF SPECIALIST, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. CACE-21-015140 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., August 3, 2021)
brings this complaint as a class action alleging the Defendant of
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent faxes to his fax
machine on December 12, 2019 and on July 26, 2021 in an attempt to
promote its services. The Defendant allegedly did not obtain the
Plaintiff's prior express consent to send those faxes that
advertise its business.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited fax ads, the
Plaintiff suffered actual harm in the form of aggravation and
nuisance, the loss of its fax line and fax machine during the
receipt of the fax, and other out of pocket costs associated with
receiving the fax. Thus, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief prohibiting the Defendant from sending unsolicited faxes to
consumers' fax machines without their prior express permission or
invitation, as well as statutory damages, and other relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
The Flat Roof Specialist, LLC is a for-profit roofing company that
services residential and commercial properties in South Florida.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
FRESNO, CA: Judge Allows Tainted Water Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Taub, writing for GWire, reports that a court ruling granted
class action certification to a group of residents suing the city
of Fresno for what they say was tainted water in their homes.
The lawsuit, initially filed in 2016 by five plaintiffs living in
northeast Fresno, complained about discolored water. The suit
claims testing by the city revealed lead and other toxins in more
than 300 residences. The problems started in 2004 when the city
switched to a treating the water the Northeast Surface Water
Treatment Facility.
"The City of Fresno's water destroyed their galvanized plumbing,
resulting in the leaching of iron and other heavy metals from the
corroded plumbing into their drinking water and receipt of
discolored, rusty water at their taps," a news release from the
plaintiff's attorneys said.
In the the intervening five years, another lawsuit was filed from a
different group of plaintiffs. On Aug. 2, Judge Rosemary McGuire
merged the two suits and granted class action status.
Judge: Class Action Could Have 2,500 People Involved
The judge's decision means that the claims of possibly thousands of
plaintiffs are consolidated into one lawsuit. The merits of the
case must still be decided by a jury, said Stuart Chandler who is
one of several attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
"It will proceed on the premise that it could go to trial with the
city potentially being liable for the damages to the many, many
homeowners in northeast Fresno," Chandler said.
Chandler said it is more practical for all parties involved to have
one lawsuit. The judge estimated the class could have "at least
1,800 to 2,500 people, if not more."
His clients have had to make drastic repairs in their homes to fix
the plumbing.
"Many of our clients have shelled out literally tens of thousands
of dollars out of pocket to have their homes fixed. And, you know,
what we found really troubling is that the city knew these problems
were going on. The folks were making complaints to the city and the
city was aware of it and had a duty to report to the state of
California what was going on. But they didn't," Chandler said.
McGuire defined the class as residents living in Fresno between E.
Copper, E. Sierra, Highway 41 and N. Willow between Jan. 1, 2016 to
the present. The class must have had galvanized iron plumbing,
received water from the city and report problems with discolored
water. Those who obtained water testing results were divided into a
subclass.
In a brief, McGuire criticized the city's legal strategy.
"Defendant has filed hundreds of objections to nearly every
statement made in every declaration of the representative
plaintiffs. In the court's assessment there is no legitimate basis
for the vast majority of the objections asserted," McGuire wrote.
Legal news site Law 360 first reported the story.
The city said the next move will be decided by the city council.
"This will be a decision for City Council, which will not be until
a later Council meeting before the appeal deadline," said Sontaya
Rose, spokeswoman for Mayor Jerry Dyer. "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." [GN]
FULL TRUCK: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 10 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 4 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.
YMM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd-information-request-form?prid=18225&wire=1
OTLY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/oatly-group-ab-loss-submission-form?prid=18225&wire=1
CXO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/concho-resources-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18225&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE:YMM)
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Full Truck's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection
with Full Truck's June 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 10, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/full-truck-alliance-co-ltd-information-request-form?prid=18225&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (1) Full Truck's apps Yunmanman
and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity review by the
Chinese government; (2) the Chinese government would require Full
Truck to suspend new user registration; (3) FTA 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.
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=18225&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.
Concho Resources Inc. (NYSE:CXO)
CXO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 21, 2018
- July 31, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/concho-resources-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=18225&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Concho
Resources Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the well spacing at Dominator
was aggressive and highly risky, and premised on no reasonable
basis to believe it would work as intended; (2) 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; (3) it was known or recklessly disregarded that any
measures to mitigate well spacing risks were non-existent and
or/impossible; (4) 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; (5) it would take multiple quarters to unwind the impacts
of the widespread well spacing failure; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
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]
GARDNER PIE: Faces Elam Class Suit Over Failure to Provide OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEVON ELAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. GARDNER PIE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01517 (N.D. Ohio, Aug. 4,
2021) challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings this claim as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees regularly
worked 40 or more hours per workweek for Defendant.
The Defendant's alleged practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees for time spent donning and
doffing their sanitary clothing and other protective equipment, or
for associated travel, resulted in Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime
compensation at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in
violation of the FLSA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Advertisers Sue Over Unlawful Agreement With Facebook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SKINNYSCHOOL LLC d/b/a MARIA MARQUES FITNESS and MINT ROSE DAY SPA
LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-06011 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 3, 2021) is a
class action complaint on behalf of advertisers on Facebook who
were victimized by the unlawful agreement between Google and
Facebook.
According to the complaint, Google has achieved dominance by
control over the overwhelming amount of advertising sold on its
advertising exchange and sought to suppress competition and protect
its position through a multitude of exclusionary tactics, including
an unlawful agreement with Facebook, Inc.
Google is responsible for all the damages incurred by the Class
because of the unlawful agreement and its concentration of power
with advertising exchanges, described below in Section VII.,
Google's agreement with Facebook, its largest potential competitive
threat, allowed Google to manipulate advertising auctions on the
advertising exchange, as further detailed in these allegations,
says the suit.
Google and Facebook are advertising companies, each of which makes
billions of dollars a year by using individuals' personal
information to sell targeted digital advertising to their clients
-- the Class.
At its inception, one of Google's primary sources of income was
from advertising on its search platform. It has since extended its
reach to dominate the online advertising landscape for image-based
web display ads, including advertising exchanges.
The purchase and sale of advertising on the web is among the most
complicated financial markets. Publishers and advertisers trade
display inventory through a variety of intermediaries on electronic
exchanges at lightning speed.
In 2018, Google generated more than $116 billion in the digital
advertising business, approximately 85% of its total revenue.
The Plaintiff contends that through Google's anticompetitive
conduct and its unlawful agreement with Facebook, Google has
violated and continues to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. section 1, et seq.
Google is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. Alphabet Inc.
is a publicly traded company incorporated and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware and headquartered in Mountain View,
California.
Google is an online advertising technology company best known for
its popular search engine. Google additionally offers many
internet-related products, including various online advertising
technologies, directly and through subsidiaries and business units
under its ownership and control.
Display ads, audio ads, and video ads in the online world have
largely supplanted their traditional print, radio, and television
counterparts. The internet ushered in completely new advertising
formats, including targeted text-based ads on search engines,
shareable ads on social media, and specialized ads inside mobile
phone applications.
Display advertising refers to ads which appear on websites or apps
alongside content. The ads may take a variety of forms, including
banners and sponsored content. For example, the New York Times runs
banner ads at the top of their homepage and atop and within
articles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
CERA LLP
595 Market St., Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 777-2230
Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
pmarkert@cerallp.com
- and -
Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER
& ZWERLING, LLP
41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 223-3900
Facsimile: (212) 371-5969
E-mail: ftisquith@zsz.com
rschachter@zsz.com
sshah@zsz.com
- and -
Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Esq.
ISQUITH LAW
220 East 80th Street
New York, NY 10075
Telephone: (607) 277-6513
E-mail: isquithlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Heidi Silton, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
Telephone: (612) 596-4092
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
- and -
Richard Vita, Esq.
VITA LAW OFFICES, P.C.
100 State Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 426-6566
E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action Over Online Ad Auctions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Nieva, writing for Cnet, reports that Google was hit by a
lawsuit from two Massachusetts companies accusing the search giant
of cutting an illegal deal with Facebook that gave the social
network unfair advantages in online advertising auctions.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed on Aug. 3 in San Francisco,
request class-action status for advertisers on Facebook who were
"victimized" by the agreement.
The lawsuit references allegations first made in an antitrust
complaint against Google filed last year by Texas Attorney General
Ken Paxton and a group of nine other state AGs. At the time, the
states alleged Google illegally teamed up with Facebook, its
fiercest competitor in the digital advertising market, after
Facebook threatened to go after Google's dominance in the market by
backing an ad buying technique called "header bidding." The
practice, in part, can help publishers go around Google's exchange
for buying and selling ads across the web.
Google, concerned by Facebook's moves in the ad market, allegedly
reached out to Facebook to try to defuse the threat. In the end,
Facebook backed off after Google agreed to give the social network
"special information, a speed advantage to assist Facebook in
succeeding in the auctions, and a guaranteed win rate," according
to the Aug.3 complaint.
"To sufficiently incentivize Facebook, Google and Facebook agreed
to fix prices and allocate markets between them in the auctions for
publishers' web displays and in-app advertising," the complaint
says. "Given the scope and extensive nature of cooperation between
Google and Facebook, they were highly aware that their activities
could trigger antitrust violations."
Reached for comment on Aug. 4, a Google spokesman pointed to a blog
post the company published in January responding to the Texas
lawsuit. In the post, Google called the lawsuit a "misleading
attack on our ad tech business."
Facebook declined to comment. Previously, the company had dismissed
the allegations, saying "partnerships like this are common in the
industry."
The complaint comes as Google finds itself the target of multiple
major antitrust lawsuits, including a complaint filed last month by
a coalition of 36 states and the District of Columbia over
allegedly anticompetitive practices at Google's Play store, a
marketplace for apps. The suit joins other cases designed to probe
Google's dominance in everything from online searches to the power
of its Android operating system, the dominant mobile software in
the world. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Starts Paying Out Google+ Class Action Privacy Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Amadeo, writing for Ars Technica, reports that who remembers
the sudden and dramatic death of Google+?
Google's Facebook competitor and "social backbone" was effectively
dead inside the company around 2014, but Google let the failed
service hang around for years in maintenance mode while the company
spun off standalone products. In 2018, The Wall Street Journal
reported that Google+ had exposed the private data of "hundreds of
thousands of users" for years, that Google knew about the problem,
and that the company opted not to disclose the data leak for fear
of regulatory scrutiny. In the wake of the report, Google was
forced to acknowledge the data leak, and the company admitted that
the "private" data of 500,000 accounts actually wasn't private.
Since nobody worked on Google+ anymore, Google's "fix" for the bug
was to close Google+ entirely. Then the lawsuits started.
The Aug. 4 class-action lawsuit, Matt Matic and Zak Harris v.
Google, was filed in October 2018 and blames Google's "lax approach
to data security" for the bugs. The complaint added, "Worse, after
discovery of this vulnerability in the Google+ platform, Defendants
kept silent for at least seven months, making a calculated decision
not to inform users that their Personal Information was
compromised, further compromising the privacy of consumers'
information and exposing them to risk of identity theft or worse."
The case website with full details is at
googleplusdatalitigation.com.
The case was settled in June 2020, with Google agreeing to pay out
$7.5 million. After losing about half of that money to legal and
administrative fees, and with 1,720,029 people filling out the
right forms by the October 2020 deadline, the payout for each
person is a whopping $2.15
This first Google+ data leak was active from 2015 to 2018 and
allowed developers full access to the data from Google+'s "People"
API, even for private profiles. This meant any developer could grab
any Google+ profile info you've filled out, including your name,
birthday, gender, email, relationship status, occupation, and a
list of the places you've lived. Two months later, Google announced
a second Google+ privacy bug that again exposed this People API
data, but this time for a whopping 52.5 million users. The case was
later expanded to cover all these people.
Google+ was killed in April 2019 and can't hurt anyone anymore.
[GN]
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Erford Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
CANDACE ERFORD; COLLEEN SZWABA; and JONATHAN SEAMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY D/B/A GEICO, Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-00314-M (E.D.N.C., Aug. 2, 2021) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as adjusters.
Government Employees Insurance Company provides insurance products.
The Company offers automobile, motorcycle, renter, homeowner, life,
mobile home, flood, condo, umbrella, and boat insurances. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph L. Ledford, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH LEDFORD
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 912
Charlotte, NC 28204
Telephone: (704) 376-3686
E-mail: Josephlledford@yahoo.com
-and-
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com
HANWHA TECHWIN: Federal Court Dismisses Biometric Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin L. Bryan, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that a federal court
recently dismissed biometric litigation brought against a marketer
and seller of video technology products. Jacobs v. Hanwha Techwin
Am., Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139668 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2021).
Although at least two other prior cases had allowed similar claims
against a third-party technology provider to proceed into
discovery, the court found Plaintiff's allegations in this instance
distinguishable. Read on to learn more.
First, a recap. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA") was enacted in 2008 and has standards regarding the
retaining and handling of the biometric data of Illinois residents.
As readers of CPW know, BIPA protects the "biometric information"
of Illinois residents, which is any information based on "biometric
identifiers" that identifies a specific person -- regardless of how
it is captured, converted, stored, or shared. 740 ILCS 14/10.
Biometric identifiers are, "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint,
voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry." Id. (collectively,
with "biometric information," "biometric data").
Now, a closer look at the allegations in Jacobs.
Plaintiff alleged that when shopping in December 2020, he saw
several of Defendant's security cameras installed at the entrance
of a T.J. Maxx store in downtown Chicago. Plaintiff also alleged
that he purportedly learned about the cameras' "ability to perform
facial recognition" during that shopping trip (cue CPW eye roll).
Plaintiff asserted that Defendant collected his biometric data
through facial recognition technology in the security cameras "to
track, identify, and prosecute shoplifters."
Plaintiff raised a litany of claims under BIPA for Defendant
failing to provide notice that it is collecting and storing
biometric data, and alleged "upon information and belief" that
Defendant disclosed such data in violation of the statute.
Plaintiff sought certification of the following class: "[a]ll
individuals in the State of Illinois who had their facial geometry
scans, biometric identifiers, and/or biometric information
collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained, maintained,
stored, disclosed, or disseminated by the defendant during the
applicable statutory period."
Defendant in moving to dismiss focused on what was tellingly absent
from the Complaint:
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant installed the cameras,
operated the cameras, or in any way accesses or controls T.J.
Maxx's security system.
Plaintiff also does not allege that Defendant operates any systems
or servers to store any information captured by the cameras.
Instead, Plaintiff's complaint suggests that Defendant's only
alleged connection to those cameras was its role as the
manufacturer and distributor.
The court ultimately sided with defendant, finding Plaintiff's
claims were conclusory or otherwise failed to state a cognizable
claim under BIPA.
First, looking at Plaintiff's Section 15(b) BIPA claim, the court
found that Plaintiff's allegations merely parroted the language of
the statute. Recall that unlike Sections 15(a), (c), (d), and (e)
of BIPA -- all of which apply to entities "in possession of"
biometric data -- Section 15(b) applies to entities that "collect,
capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain"
biometric data. 740 ILCS 14/15(a)-(e). Additionally, "mere
possession of biometric data is insufficient to trigger Section
15(b)'s requirements." However, Plaintiff argued (in reliance on
the "otherwise obtain" language in Section 15(b)) that the
provision applies to any private entity that obtains biometric
data, no matter the source or manner of collection.
The court rejected this interpretation as "flawed." Following the
rulings of other courts applying BIPA, it held that "for Section
15(b)'s requirements to apply, an entity must, at a minimum, take
an active step to collect, capture, purchase, or otherwise obtain
biometric data." (emphasis supplied). However, here Plaintiff
failed to adequately alleged that Defendant took any active steps
to collect biometric data. Instead, the allegations in the
complaint made clear to the court that Defendant is "a third-party
technology provider (that is, merely provided the cameras), and
that the active collector and processor of the data is T.J. Maxx."
(emphasis supplied).
Second, the court rejected Plaintiff's Section 15(a) and (d) claims
as similarly fundamentally flawed. This was because, the court
explained, Sections 15(a) and 15(d) of BIPA apply to entities "in
possession of" biometric data. 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (d). Because BIPA
does not define "possession," courts have routinely used the
ordinary definition of the word. Accordingly, possession for
purposes of BIPA occurs when someone "exercise[es] any form of
control over the data or . . . held the data at [his] disposal."
However, the court held, Plaintiff "does not provide any factual
allegations that plausibly establish that defendant exercised
control over plaintiff's data or otherwise held plaintiff's data at
its disposal." (emphasis supplied).
Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. Notably, at least two other
BIPA cases involving claims against a third-party technology
provider made it past a motion to dismiss. However, unlike Jacobs,
the factual allegations in those prior cases made clear that the
manufacturers of the fingerprint scanners had themselves collected,
obtained, or stored the biometric data. [GN]
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Johnson Sues Over Unsolicited Collection Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE R. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARLEY DAVIDSON FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04117 (N.D. Ill.,
August 3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has been placing
collection calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number
ending in 6818 in an attempt to collect payments of the 2018 Ultra
Limited Harley Davidson motorcycle which she acquired through a
Retail Installment Contract with the Defendant to finance the
purchase of the vehicle. Following the contract, the Plaintiff was
required to make payments on the 6th of every month, but included a
10-day grace period for payments within which the Plaintiff could
make payments without any ramifications. Although the Plaintiff
always made the payment before the expiration of the 10-day grace
period, except for her payment on April 2021 that was paid on the
11th day, the Defendant placed 8 calls between March 9, 2021 and
March 10, 2021 which makes the Plaintiff extremely frustrated.
Despite the Plaintiff's request to the Defendant to stop placing
excessive calls, the Defendant continued placing 150 harassing
collection calls and sending 35 pre-recorded voice messages, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's harassing collection
calls and pre-recorded messages have caused damages in the form of
aggravation, anxiety, emotional distress, increased risk of
personal injury, invasion of privacy, mental anguish, and nuisance.
Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint to seek redress for the
Defendant's unlawful conduct.
Harley Davidson Financial Services, Inc. provides financing
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8180
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Aids and Abets Ponzi Scheme, Chang Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN CHANG, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC; and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-05967-NC (N.D. Cal., Aug.
2, 2021) is an action for actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff
and the class, and for other recovery for harm caused by the
Defendant in aiding and abetting fraud and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class are victims
of a Ponzi scheme perpetrated with the Defendant's knowing
assistance. The scheme was devised by Haena Park, customer of the
Defendant who solicited funds from the Plaintiff and the members of
the class through fraud and deceit and then misused those funds for
her own gains and to make phony dividend payments to other
investors caught up in the scheme, the suit added.
The Defendant recognized 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. Rather than scrutinize the activity, freeze the account,
and report Park to the authorities, the Defendant allegedly
disregarded its own compliance department's red flags and written
internal compliance policies to further aid Park, a lucrative
customer of the Defendant, to continue the scheme through its
brokerage services.
Interactive Brokers LLC operates as a brokerage firm. The Company
provides trading in forex, stocks, options, futures, fixed income,
and funds. I
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth Kramer, Esq.
Julie Erickson, Esq.
Kevin Osborne, Esq.
Erickson Kramer Osborne LLP
182 Howard Street # 736
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 635-0631
Facsimile: (415) 599-8088
E-mail: elizabeth@eko.law
julie@eko.law
kevin@eko.law
IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff's Affidavit Filed in Del. Ch.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as JOHN MAKRIS, SEAN
SEGO, OMAR WEVER-PINZON, and JORDAN SCHLEE, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. IONIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
DAMIEN MCDEVITT; LYNNE PARSHALL; ELAINE HOCHBERG, and SANDFORD D.
SMITH, Case No. 2021-0681, Plaintiff Jordan Schlee filed his
verification and affidavit with the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware on August 5, 2021.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of their
fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs and all other similarly
situated stockholders.
Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in
Carlsbad, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
300 Delaware Ave. Ste. 1340
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-6938
E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com
ITERUM THERAPEUTICS: Faces Klein Class Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE KLEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITERUM THERAPEUTICS PLC, COREY N. FISHMAN, and JUDITH
M. MATTHEWS, Case No. 1:21-cv-04181 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 5, 2021) is a
federal securities class action 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 the 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 against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
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").
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly 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
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.
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."
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 ("CRL") 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.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff acquired Iterum securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Iterum is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company that engages in
developing anti-infectives for multi-drug resistant pathogens in
Ireland and the U.S. The Company is developing sulopenem, a novel
anti-infective compound with oral and intravenous ("IV")
formulations that is in Phase III clinical trials for the treatment
of, among other medical issues, uncomplicated urinary tract
infections ("uUTIs").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
lcludwig@pomlaw.com
IVORY ELLA: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ivory Ella, LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Ivory
Ella, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04464 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ivory Ella -- https://ivoryella.com/ -- is an online for-profit
clothing store owned by CEO John Allen and five other co-founders
affiliated with Save the Elephants, an organization specializing in
wildlife conservation of elephants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
JAMES HARDIE: No Compensation for Homeowners in Cladding Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Church, writing for TVNZ, reports that a $220m class action
against building giant James Hardie has ended, with no compensation
for homeowners.
More than 1000 homeowners were seeking compensation from the
company, alleging it knowingly sold them defective cladding known
as Harditex.
There were 376 properties involved in the class action.
Lawyers for both the homeowners and James Hardie were progressing
through a 17-week trial at the High Court in Auckland, when
proceedings abruptly stopped.
It was announced that the parties had reached a settlement - but
there would be no compensation for homeowners.
Instead, James Hardie would receive $1.25m following the
settlement, there would be no admission of liability, and the case
would be discontinued in its entirety.
While lawyers for the plaintiffs said the circumstances around the
settlement were "confidential", 1 NEWS understands the settlement
came after the London-based litigation funder, Harbour Litigation
Funding, said it would end its funding of the case.
"After approximately six years of strongly contested court
proceedings, involving over 1,000 plaintiffs and numerous highly
qualified experts, this is obviously a disappointing outcome
halfway through the trial on liability," said the homeowners'
lawyer, Adina Thorn.
While the homeowners would not get any compensation, they would
also not incur any costs for being involved in the class action.
"High Court litigation is often complex, costly and comes with
inherent risks. The settlement reflects these realities," said
Thorn.
One of the homeowners, Noel Hayman, owned a 10-unit hotel and
two-storey home complex and claimed Harditex cladding caused leaks,
costing them $600,000.
"The cost to us was just under $600,000 plus there was loss of
income to the motel lessee over the two-year repair period," he
said.
"Some compensation would have been much appreciated – but the
settlement represented a necessary compromise."
Meanwhile James Hardie welcomed the settlement.
"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 weathertightness
issues," said James Hardie's John Arneil. [GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Elmiron Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that the company continues to
defend itself from class action suits related to Elmiron.
Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of Elmiron, a
prescription medication indicated for the relief of bladder pain or
discomfort associated with interstitial cystitis.
These lawsuits, which allege that Elmiron contributes to the
development of permanent retinal injury and vision loss, have been
filed in both state and federal courts across the United States.
In December 2020, lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United
States, including putative class action cases seeking medical
monitoring, were organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Cases also have been filed in various state courts. In addition,
three class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada.
Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases.
The Company has established accruals for defense costs associated
with ELMIRON(R) related product liability litigation.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Continues to Defend Invokana Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to sales of Invokana medication.
Claims for personal injury have been made against a number of
Johnson & Johnson companies, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and Johnson & Johnson, arising out of the use of Invokana, a
prescription medication indicated to improve glycemic control in
adults with Type 2 diabetes.
In December 2016, lawsuits filed in federal courts in the United
States were organized as a multi-district litigation in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Cases have
also been filed in state courts.
Class action lawsuits have been filed in Canada.
Product liability lawsuits continue to be filed, and the Company
continues to receive information with respect to potential costs
and the anticipated number of cases.
The Company has settled or otherwise resolved many of the cases and
claims in the United States and the costs associated with these
settlements are reflected in the Company's accruals.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in cART Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit related to the combination antiretroviral
therapies (cART) to treat HIV.
In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland (Janssen) and Johnson & Johnson in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity provisions
in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development and
marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to treat
HIV.
The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Japan Tobacco.
In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in April 2020.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
renewed motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Remicade Antitrust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re
Remicade Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions were
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of REMICADE(R) against
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Janssen) alleging that
Janssen has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting
strategies for Remicade.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes as In re
REMICADE(R) Antitrust Litigation in United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The consolidated complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Discovery is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Talc Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the securities class action against the company in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily Johnson's Baby Powder.
In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily Johnson's Baby Powder and that
purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a
result.
Plaintiff is seeking damages.
In April 2019, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint and
briefing on the motion was complete as of August 2019. In December
2019, the Court denied, in part, the motion to dismiss. In March
2020, Defendants answered the complaint.
In April 2021 briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was completed.
Discovery is ongoing.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sunscreen Products Cause Cancer, Fernadez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MINETT FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-14492 (D.N.J., Aug. 2, 2021) alleges
that the sunscreen products of the Defendant contains dangerous
high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been
linked to leukemia and other cancers (hereinafter, the "Product" or
"Products").
According to the complaint, on May 2021, Valisure conducted a study
on the potential carcinogenicity of sunscreens. During its study,
Valisure detected dangerously high levels of benzene in numerous of
the Defendants products. This is in stark contrast to other
sunscreens Valisure tested, many of which contained no benzene.
Following its study, Valisure filed a citizen petition with the
FDA, detailing its findings and asking the FDA to recall all
batches of sunscreen products in which benzene was detected,
including the Sunscreen Products. As Valisure explained in its
petition, the presence of benzene in the Sunscreen Products renders
them adulterated under Section 501 of the Federal Drug and
Cosmetics Act ("FDCA") and misbranded under Section 502 of the
FDCA.
Yet despite the prohibition on manufacturing and distributing
misbranded or adulterated drugs, the Defendant waited nearly two
months before removing the Sunscreen Products from the market.
Furthermore, other of the Defendant's products containing
dangerously high levels of benzene remain on the market, says the
suit.
Had the Plaintiff and the class known that the sunscreens they were
using to decrease the risk of skin cancer had actually contained
carcinogens, they certainly would not have purchased them, the suit
added.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI
OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO P.C.
5 Becker Farm Rd.
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
-and-
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone (917) 438-9189
Facsimile (212) 753-0646
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
KOPPERS INC: Bryant Files Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koppers, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Larry Bryant, Deidra Bryant, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Koppers, Inc.,
Culpeper of Federalsburg, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02008 (D. Md., Aug.
9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.
Koppers -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is a global chemical and
materials company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
in an art-deco 1920s skyscraper, the Koppers Tower.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark D. Maneche, Esq.
PESSIN KATZ LAW PA
901 Dulaney Valley Rd Ste 500
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: (410) 769-6151
Fax: (410) 832-5679
Email: mmaneche@pklaw.com
LONOKE COUNTY SAFE HAVEN: McLain Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle McLain, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Lonoke County Safe Haven, Inc., Sarah Brown and Cindy
Jones, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00695, (E.D. Ark., August 2,
2021) seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, prejudgment
interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees for
failure to pay overtime and for failing to provide proper breaks
and privacy for Plaintiff as a nursing mother under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Defendants own and operate a domestic violence outreach program
where McLain worked as an hourly-paid employee from October of 2019
to July of 2021. She claims to have regularly worked in excess of
forty hours per week without overtime pay. McLain, a nursing
mother, also claims that she was not provided a place free of
intrusion to express breastmilk for her child. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
LUCKIN COFFEE: Sept. 17 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE LUCKIN COFFEE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:20-cv-01293-JPC-JLC
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
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER
& CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
1-610-667-7706
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a member of the
Class, you do not need to do anything at this time. If you are a
Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will
be bound by all proceedings in this Action that pertain to the
Class and any Settlement reached. If you move, or if the Notice was
mailed to an old or incorrect address, please send the Notice
Administrator written notification of your new address.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, under U.S. law, you will
not be bound by any order or judgment of this Court in this Action
that pertains to the Class; however, you may not be entitled to
participate in or be eligible to share in any Settlement reached,
except for where the Settlement is effected by a scheme of
arrangement under section 86 of the Cayman Islands' Companies Act,
which may be binding on all members of the Class irrespective of
whether they choose to be excluded from the Class or not. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion postmarked no later than September 17, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the full printed
Notice. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion as to whether a
second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be
allowed in the event there is a Settlement.
The Settlement may be effected through a scheme of arrangement
process under the laws of the Cayman Islands ("Scheme"). If the
Scheme is sanctioned by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands
("Grand Court"), it will be binding on all creditors of the same
class. Whether creditors are of the same class pursuant to the
Scheme is a matter of Cayman Islands law but in the likely event
that the Grand Court finds that all members of the Class for the
purposes of U.S. law are also creditors of the same class under the
Scheme, then the Scheme, once sanctioned, will be binding on you
regardless of whether you exclude yourself from the Class. If you
remain a member of the Class, your interests will be represented in
the Scheme process by the Class Representatives and Class Counsel
appointed by this Court, as well as by Cayman counsel retained by
Class Counsel. If you exclude yourself from the Class, you must
participate directly in the Scheme process in order to have your
interests represented there.
Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
MATOUK TEXTILE: Graciano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Matouk Textile Works,
Inc. The case is styled as Sandy Graciano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Matouk Textile Works, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-06727 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Matouk Textile Works -- https://www.matouk.com/ -- is committed to
designing and manufacturing the world's best-made and best-loved
linens for its passionate and discerning clientele around the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
MEN TAKING: Fuentes Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
SERENA FUENTES and YULIANA BARRAGAN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEN TAKING OVER
REFORMING SOCIETY, INC.; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 21STCV28940 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., August 5,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to pay wages when
employment ends, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to
give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Ms. Fuentes worked for the Defendants as a case manager from June
22, 2020 until her termination on September 4, 2020.
Ms. Barragan worked for the Defendants as a resident aid from July
23, 2020 until her termination around September 3 or 4, 2020.
Men Taking Over Reforming Society, Inc. is a charitable
organization based in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
MISSISSIPPI DOC: Wallace Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mississippi
Department of Corrections, et al. The case is styled as Eric
Wallace, Fred Patmon, Timothy Robinson, Tonisha Johnson, Thalia
Outlaw, Steven Miller, Ida Weaver, Latoria Brownlee, Bobby
Henderson, Lacrita Summerlin, Roger Havens, Jimmy Nanney, Stephen
Powers, Mondrick Bradley, Eric Kennedy, Thaddeus Jarvis, Luther
Hinton, Justin Hill, Pervis Everett, Keith O'Brien, Anthony
Loewenstein, Larry Allen, Lee Nix, Terry Lattimore, Derrick Guyton,
William Walden, Sylvia Smith, Peggy Starns, Jeannie Mathis, Judy
Wilbanks, Melissa Adams, Disability Rights Mississippi, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Mississippi
Department of Corrections; Nathan Burl Cain, in his official
capacity as Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections; Jeworski Mallett, in his official capacity as Deputy
Commissioner of Institutions; Donald Faucett, in his official
capacity as Chief Medical Officer; Vitalcore Health Strategies,
LLC; John & Jane Doe Defendants; XYZ Corporations; Case No.
3:21-cv-00516-CWR-LGI (S.D. Miss., Aug. 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions – Prison for
Civil Rights.
The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) --
https://www.ms.gov/mdoc/inmate -- is a state agency of Mississippi
that operates prisons. It has its headquarters in Jackson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greta K Martin, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS MISSISSIPPI
5 Old River Place, Suite 101
Jackson, MS 39202
Phone: (601) 968-0600
Fax: (601) 968-0665
Email: gmartin@drms.ms
MMA CAPITAL: Reinhardt Balks at Fundamental Advisors' Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES REINHARDT v. MMA CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., CECIL E. FLAMER,
JAMES C. HUNT, LISA KAY, J.P. GRANT, MICHAEL L. FALCONE, SUZANNE G.
KUCERA, and FREDERICK W. PUDDESTER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01122-UNA (D.
Del., Aug. 2, 2021) is an action against MMA Capital and the
members of MMA's Board of Directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, arising out of their attempt to be acquired by
Fundamental Advisors LP through Fundamental's affiliates FP
Acquisition Parent, LLC and FP Acquisition Merger Sub, LLC (the
Proposed Transaction).
On May 24, 2021, MMA announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to
which, MMA shareholders will receive $27.77 in cash for each MMA
share they own.
On July 13, 2021, MMA filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy is
materially deficient and misleading because it fails to disclose
material information regarding: (i) the Company's financial
projections and the financial analyses performed by the Company's
financial advisor, TD Securities (USA) LLC ("TD Securities").
The stockholder vote to approve the Proposed Transaction is
forthcoming. Under the Merger Agreement, following a successful
stockholder vote, the Proposed Transaction will be consummated. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from conducting the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information discussed below is disclosed to the holders of
the Company common stock, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.
The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of MMA.
MMA focuses on infrastructure-related investments that generate
positive environmental and social impacts and deliver attractive
risk-adjusted total returns to the Company's shareholders, with an
emphasis on debt associated with renewable energy projects.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com
- and -
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 860-9158
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
MOLLY PICON: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Molly Picon LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Molly
Picon LLC doing business as: Jack's Wife Freda, Case No.
1:21-cv-04463 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jack's Wife Freda -- http://jackswifefreda.com/-- is a lively
all-day NYC bistro executing American-Mediterranean cooking &
classic cocktails in understated digs, with locations in Soho and
the West Village.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
MUNSON HEALTHCARE: Faces Schexnaildre Suit Over No-Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH SCHEXNAILDRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MUNSON HEALTHCARE and TRAVERSE ANESTHESIA
ASSOCIATES, P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-00660 (W.D. Mich., Aug. 2, 2021)
addresses an agreement between Munson and TAA to restrain
competition and reduce compensation for providers of anesthesia
services.
According to the complaint, the Defendants Munson and TAA compete
with one another to hire and retain qualified providers of
anesthesia services, including CRNAs. Beginning on a date currently
unknown to Plaintiff, Munson agreed that it would not solicit or
hire TAA's anesthesia service providers while they were employed by
TAA and for at least one year after the person had left TAA's
employment. This agreement is still in effect and is being enforced
by Munson.
The Plaintiff contends that the agreement between Munson and TAA
was not ancillary to any legitimate business transaction or lawful
collaboration between Defendants. The Defendants' arrangement was a
naked agreement to unlawfully eliminate competition for, suppress
the compensation paid to, and otherwise reduce the expense of
obtaining the services of qualified providers of anesthesia
services, says the suit.
This action arises under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and the
Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The Plaintiff seeks the recovery of
treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for
the injuries that Plaintiff and members of the Proposed Class
sustained as a result of Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, as
well as a declaration that the no-poach agreement is illegal and an
injunction against its enforcement.
Munson bills itself as "northern Michigan's largest and leading
healthcare system." TAA is a "medical professional corporation that
provides anesthesia and pain management services at several general
hospitals and outpatient sites in the Grand Traverse region."
The Plaintiff is a certified registered nurse anesthetist ("CRNA")
who brings this suit individually and on behalf of the Proposed
Class to enjoin Defendants from maintaining and enforcing their
unlawful "no poach" agreement, and to recover damages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and -
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
whoese@kohnswift.com
amanohar@kohnswift.com
- and -
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
Randall B. Weill, Esq.
Michael S. Smith, Esq.
PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU
& PACHIOS LLP
One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Telephone: (207) 791-3000
E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
rweill@preti.com
msmith@preti.com
NATIONAL CEMENT: Ramirez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Cement
Company of California, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Ramirez, as
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Cement Company of California, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-101834 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Aug. 10, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
National Cement Company of California, Inc. is a glass, ceramics &
concrete company based out of 15821 Ventura Blvd, Los Angeles,
California, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
1110 Franklin St. Ste. 6
Oakland, CA 94607-6528
Phone: (415) 779-2888
Fax: (415) 738-7873
Email: larry@ysleelaw.com
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Federal Court Tosses Conspiracy Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerrit Yau, Esq., and Christopher Hersh, Esq., of Cassels, in an
article for Mondaq, report that On July 29, 2021, the Federal Court
released its reasons in Mohr v National Hockey League,1 which
concerned both the representative plaintiff's Motion to Amend, and
the defendants' Motion to Strike, the Statement of Claim. The class
action itself concerned allegations of conspiracy contrary to
sections 45(1) and 48 of the Competition Act (the Act) against the
National Hockey League (NHL), American Hockey League Inc. (AHL),
ECHL Inc. (ECHL), the Canadian Hockey League (CHL), Québec Major
Junior Hockey League Inc. (QMJHL), the Ontario Hockey League (OHL),
the Western Hockey League (WHL), and Hockey Canada.
Chief Justice Paul Crampton dismissed the representative
plaintiff's Motion to Amend and granted the defendants' Motion to
Strike. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to plead a
reasonable cause of action under either section 45(1) or 48 of the
Act and that the plaintiff's proposed Amended Statement of Claim
would not have cured the deficiencies in his pleadings. In reaching
the decision, the Court reviewed the legislative history of both
relevant sections of the Act to support an interpretation advocated
by the defendants. A summary of the Federal Court's reasons can be
found below.
Background on Mohr
Mohr involved a class action brought by the representative
plaintiff, Kobe Mohr, a former Canadian junior hockey player,
alleging that the Canadian hockey leagues, namely the QMJHL, the
OHL, and the WHL -- all under the umbrella organization of the CHL
-- conspired to "limit unreasonably the Class Members' opportunity
to negotiate and play with teams in the NHL, the AHL, and the ECHL"
and to "impose unreasonable terms and conditions upon the Class
Members, [such as] the imposition of 'nominal wages' and 'the loss
of rights to market their image, sponsorship, and endorsement
opportunities.' "2
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' conspiracy was contrary
to sections 45(1) and 48 of the Act. Section 45(1) of the Act
prohibits various types of conspiracies or agreements that
constrain either the "supply" or the "production or supply" of a
product or service for which the competitors compete. Section 48
specifically concerns conspiracies relating to professional
sports.
Reasons for the Federal Court's Decision
In granting the defendant's Motion to Strike and dismissing the
representative plaintiff's Motion to Amend, the Court agreed with
the defendants' position that the plaintiff's Amended Statement of
Claim would not survive a motion to strike under Rule 221 of the
Federal Courts Rules for the following reasons.
No Reasonable Cause of Action
The Court found that the Amended Statement of Claim did not
disclose any reasonable cause of action, as it alleged six separate
conspiracies, none of which met the requirements of either section
45(1) or 48 of the Act.
Chief Justice Crampton noted that the key elements of subsection
45(1) that were required to be met were: (i) "product"; (ii)
"competitors"; and (iii) "production or supply." As the players
were the party to provide the "product" at issue (i.e., the service
of playing hockey), hockey clubs and leagues were acquiring or
purchasing the product -- not producing or supplying it - such that
the defendants were also not "competitors" as it relates to the
product. Thus, the plaintiff's claims did not support a cause of
action under subsection 45(1).
Furthermore, the legislative history of subsection 45(1) is that,
prior to the enactment of the current wording of the provision in
2010, the word "purchase" was present in the prohibited list of
activities that could be subject to the provision. The deliberate
elimination of the word "purchase" from the current text of
subsection 45(1) indicated that Parliament intended to limit the
scope of the provision. Other documents supported this intention,
with a report authored by a panel appointed by the Government of
Canada specifically observing that "the criminal law [.] should be
reserved for conduct that is unambiguously harmful to
competition."3 In effect, subsection 45(1) mainly concerns "hard
core" cartel agreements, also known as "naked" cartel agreements --
a cartel is formed when parties agree to act together instead of
competing with each other. The alleged agreements between the
defendants did not qualify as such.
For the reasons set out above, the Court concluded that it was
"plain and obvious that the plaintiff has not pleaded a reasonable
cause of action [.] in relation to the production and supply of the
services that are at issue in this proceeding."
In relation to the section 48 analysis (the provision dealing with
conspiracy relating to professional sport), Chief Justice Crampton
also agreed with the defendants' interpretation that the provision
only concerned intra-league agreements that "relate exclusively" to
the limiting of opportunities for a player to participate in
professional sport or negotiate with and to play for the team of
their choice. This interpretation was supported by the legislative
history of the provision as well.6
Given that the plaintiff alleged, among other claims, that the
Canadian hockey leagues conspired to limit the Class Members'
(i.e., the players') opportunities in the NHL, the AHL, and the
ECHL, the inter-league nature of the allegations failed to disclose
a reasonable cause of action under section 48 as well.
Amended Statement of Claim Constituted Abuse of Court's Process
The Motion to Amend was brought pursuant to Rule 75 of the Federal
Courts Rules, which provided that the Court may allow a party to do
so "on such terms as will protect the rights of all parties." The
defendants challenged the Amended Statement of Claim as an abuse of
the Court's process, asserting that it sought to "add conspiracy
claims related to hockey players' wages that are currently being
litigated in three (3) separate class actions before Superior
Courts in Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta."7
In agreeing with the defendants, the Court held that the "net
effect of many of the proposed amendments would be to significantly
expand the focus proceeding to include wage related matters that
are already the subject of the aforementioned proceedings in
Ontario, Alberta, and Quebec."8 This constituted an abuse of
process due to the "spectre of a multiplicity of proceedings of
these issues."9
The Court also found that the Amended Statement of Claim introduced
new complexities and issues, giving rise to a range of new
questions, which would have made it more difficult for the
defendants to know the case they have to meet. These additional
complications would not have served the rights of the defendants,
contrary to the condition provided by Rule 75 of the Federal Courts
Rules.
For the reasons above, the Court held that it was plain and obvious
that the Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of
action, and that the existing deficiencies in the Statement of
Claim could not be potentially cured by granting leave to the
plaintiff to amend his pleading.
Conclusion
The Court in Mohr clarified that subsection 45(1) of the Act
applied only to the category of "hard core" cartel agreements, and
more specifically, to the agreements that concern the production or
supply of a product or service. As such, it would appear that
circumstances whereby professional athletes offer their playing
services for clubs to "purchase" would not generally be subject to
section 45, as in Mohr.
This is consistent with the Competition Bureau's November 2020
statement confirming that section 45 does not apply to "buy-side
agreements, including employment-related no-poaching and
wage-fixing agreements." In this regard, Canadian competition law
sharply contrasts with US antitrust law and the enforcement
position of US antitrust regulators, who have clearly indicated
that they will criminally investigate "naked no-poaching or
wage-fixing agreements that are unrelated or unnecessary to a
larger legitimate collaboration between the employers."
The Court further confirmed that section 48, the provision that
specifically addresses conspiracy in professional sports, applies
only to agreements "between or among teams and clubs engaged in
professional sport as members of the same league." Therefore,
claims of inter-league conspiracy, as in Mohr, would not generally
be subject to section 48.
As a resounding victory for the hockey leagues, Mohr offers much
needed clarity for sports leagues and governing bodies operating in
Canada by clarifying the key elements of the Act's provisions that
are critical and relevant for determining their relationships with
players. [GN]
NEW JADE: Zhang Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN GUO ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW JADE DYNASTY INC., D/B/A JADE DYNASTY,
TZU CHUN SHEN, HSIAO FENG KUNG and LIZA HOM, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-14653 (D.N.J., August 5, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated delivery drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Plaintiff Zhang was hired by the Defendants as a delivery driver
from October 22, 2019 to June 1, 2021.
New Jade Dynasty Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant
under the name Jade Dynasty located at 925 Amboy Avenue, Edison,
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Qinyu Fan, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
E-mail: qfan@hanglaw.com
NEW YORK HEALTHCARE: Health Aides Seek Minimum, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Shantell Lewis, Jennifer Grant and Syrene Patten, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
New York Healthcare Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-04333 (E.D.
N.Y., August 2, 2021), seeks compensation for wages paid at less
than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages for overtime work for
which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law,
compensation to pay wages for all hours worked, compensation for
failure to pay on time and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws.
New York Healthcare owns and operates a home health care service,
placing home health and personal care aides at the homes of
patients in the New York Metropolitan area -- patients who have
medical and personal care needs. It was a licensed home health care
agency with contractual relationships with one or more managed care
plans under which it was reimbursed by such managed care plans for
services performed by its home health aide.
Plaintiffs are former home health aides who worked for New York
Healthcare. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 563-9884
Email: michael@samuelandstein.com
NEWSWEEK LLC: Discloses Private Reading Information, Eberhardt Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CALANDRA EBERHARDT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NEWSWEEK LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-11797-NGE-EAS
(E.D. Mich., Aug. 4, 2021) contends that Defendant Newsweek rented,
exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information about
Plaintiff's Newsweek magazine subscription to data aggregators,
data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others,
which in turn disclosed her information to aggressive advertisers,
political organizations, and non-profit companies.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of unwanted junk
mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing the
Plaintiff's Private Reading Information during the relevant
pre-July 30, 2016 time period, Newsweek violated Michigan's
Preservation of Personal Privacy Act, says the suit.
Accordingly, documented evidence confirms these facts. For example,
a list broker, Worldata InfoCenter, Inc. (Woldata), offers to
provide renters access to the mailing list titled "Newsweek", which
contains the Private Reading Information of 1,821,609 of Newsweek's
active U.S. subscribers at a base price of "$115.00/M [per
thousand]."
The Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against Newsweek
for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers'
Private Reading Information in violation of the PPPA, says the
suit.
To supplement its revenues, Newsweek rents, exchanges, or otherwise
discloses its customers' information -- including their full names,
titles of publications subscribed to, and home addresses
(collectively "Private Reading Information"), as well as myriad
other categories of individualized data and demographic information
such as age, gender, income and job title -- to data aggregators,
data appenders, data cooperatives, and other third parties without
the written consent of its customers.
Plaintiff Eberhardt is a natural person and citizen of the State of
Michigan and resides in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff was a
subscriber to Newsweek magazine, including during the relevant
pre-July 30, 2016 time period.
Newsweek magazine is published by Newsweek. While residing in, a
citizen of, and present in Michigan, Plaintiff purchased her
subscription to Newsweek magazine directly from Newsweek. Prior to
and at the time Plaintiff subscribed to Newsweek, Newsweek did not
notify Plaintiff that it discloses the Private Reading Information
of its customers, and Plaintiff has never authorized Newsweek to do
so.
Newsweek LLC is a New York corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in New York, New York. Newsweek does
business throughout Michigan and the entire United States. Newsweek
is the publisher of Newsweek magazine.[BN]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
NOBLE ENERGY: Wants 10th Cir. to Remand Royalty Owners' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Noble Energy and DCP Midstream urged the Tenth
Circuit to reconsider remanding a proposed class action alleging
royalty owners were underpaid to Colorado state court, arguing the
panel overlooked a key claim that puts the amount in controversy
well above the threshold needed to establish federal jurisdiction.
[GN]
NYC HEALTH: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Greene Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
SALENA GREENE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
in the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. NYC HEALTH AND
HOSPITAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04380 (E.D.N.Y., August
4, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking to
recover damages as a result of its alleged willful and intentional
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security person at
the Defendant's hospital and medical services and care facilities
at 760 Broadway, Brooklyn, NY 11206 and 100 N. Portland Ave.,
Brooklyn, NY 11205 from on or around December 14, 2020 through May
21, 2021.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to timely pay her
wages because she was paid bi-weekly. Despite regularly working
more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied him of overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, as well
as spread-of-hours pay at the basic minimum hourly wage rate for
each day her shift exceeded 10 hours. In addition, the Defendant
failed to provide him a wage statement, and any notice of her rate
of pay, the Plaintiff added.
NYC Heath and Hospital Corp. operates a hospital and medical
services and care facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 792-0046
E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com
OPTUM INC: Judge Decertifies Consultants' Underpayment Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alia Paavola, writing for Beckers Hospital Review, reports that a
Minnesota federal judge on Aug. 2 decertified a class-action
lawsuit against two UnitedHealth Group subsidiaries, Optum and The
Advisory Board, that alleged that the companies misclassified
independent contractors and underpaid them.
U.S. District Judge David Doty granted the motion by UnitedHealth's
subsidiaries to decertify the plaintiff class because "significant
and material disparities exist" among the 145 possible class
members in Maine, New York and Maryland. As a result, it would be
difficult to determine which of them would qualify as independent
contractors rather than employees.
Plaintiff Oluro Olukayode, who worked as a consultant for the
defendants, filed the suit in April 2019. Mr. Olukayode alleged
that the companies failed to pay overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Minimum Wage Act and the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.
Mr. Olukayode said he worked on five total EHR installation
training projects for the subsidiaries in Maine, Maryland and New
York. During those projects, Mr. Olukayode claimed that he worked
more than 40 hours a week and was not paid properly for overtime.
In August 2019, a federal judge granted the plaintiff's motion to
make the lawsuit a class action, limiting the members to those who
began working as independent contractors for the defendants before
September 2018.
However, Mr. Dotty ruled that there are too many discrepancies
among consultant experiences in Maine, Maryland and New York to
certify the class. In particular, the court would have to review
evidence from each plaintiff about their training, supervision,
project lengths, equipment and hourly pay to determine the possible
class.
"The court finds that these individual questions overwhelm any
questions common to the class because plaintiffs need to submit
evidence that varies from member to member," Mr. Dotty said. "Under
these circumstances, the proposed class actions could not proceed
efficiently. Therefore, the court denies class certification." [GN]
OTB ACQUISITION: Faces Shaw Suit Over Tip Credit, Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON SHAW, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. OTB ACQUISITION, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02104 (D.
Colo., Aug. 3, 2021) implicates OTB Acquisition's violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") tip credit and subsequent
underpayment of its employees at the federally mandated minimum
wage rate and violations of the Colorado Wage and Hour Laws for
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated
workers their earned minimum wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendant pays its tipped
employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA
and, in Colorado, pursuant to Colorado Minimum Wage Order 32, the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.
OTB operates a chain of casual restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
OUTSIDE INTEGRATED: Discloses Private Reading Info, Loftus Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LOFTUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. OUTSIDE INTEGRATED MEDIA, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11809-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., Aug. 5, 2021) alleges that OIM
rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed detailed information
about Plaintiff's Outside magazine subscription to data
aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers,
among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive
advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has received a barrage of
unwanted junk mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise
disclosing Plaintiff's Private Reading Information during the
relevant pre-July 30, 2016 time period, OIM violated Michigan's
Preservation of Personal Privacy Act.
Documented evidence confirms these facts. For example, a list
broker, NextMark, Inc., offers to provide renters access to the
mailing list titled "Outside Magazine Mailing List", which contains
the Private Reading Information of 524,985 of OIM's active U.S.
subscribers at a base price of "$105.00/M [per thousand]."
By renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing the Private Reading
Information of its Michigan-based subscribers during the relevant
pre-July 30, 2016 time period, OIM violated the PPPA, the suit
alleges.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint against
OIM for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its customers'
Private Reading Information in violation of the PPPA.
To supplement its revenues, OIM rents, exchanges, or otherwise
discloses its customers' information -- including their full names,
titles of publications subscribed to, and home addresses
(collectively "Private Reading Information"), as well as myriad
other categories of individualized data and demographic information
such as gender -- to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and other third parties without the written consent
of its customers.
Plaintiff John Loftus is a natural person and citizen of the State
of Michigan and resides in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff was a
subscriber to Outside magazine, including during the relevant
pre-July 30, 2016 time period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL) resulting from
allegations that PayPal may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased PayPal securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2138.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On July 29, 2021, PayPal filed its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC"), for the second quarter of 2021 in which, among
other things, the Company disclosed investigations by both the SEC
and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"). PayPal
stated that it "has responded to subpoenas and requests for
information received from the [SEC] relating to whether the
interchange rates paid to the bank that issues debit cards bearing
our licensed brands were consistent with Regulation II of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and to the reporting of
marketing fees earned from the Company's branded card program."
PayPal also disclosed receipt of Civil Investigative Demands
("CIDs") from the CFPB "related to Venmo's unauthorized funds
transfers and collections processes, and related matters" and "to
the marketing and use of PayPal Credit in connection with certain
merchants that provide educational services."
On this news, PayPal's stock price fell $30.99 per share, or 10%,
from its July 28, 2021 closing price over the next three trading
days to close at $270.99 per share on August 2, 2021, damaging
investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
PERFORMANCE TEAM: Fails to Pay Bonuses, Accrued Vacation, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD KATAB, an individual v. PERFORMANCE TEAM LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CRAIG KAPLAN, an individual; and DOES
1-20, Case No. 21STCV28803 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Aug. 4,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated alleging that the Defendants violated the Labor
Code by failure to pay earned bonuses and failure to pay accrued
vacation, and suing over breach of contract -- employment
agreement.
On December 22, 2020, the Plaintiff notified Defendant Kaplan that
he was resigning from his employment with Defendant Performance
Team for Good Reason, a phrase defined in the Employment Agreement
and Retention Agreement.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant Performance Team until January
15, 2021. The Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiff Katab upon
the termination of his employment all of his accrued, unpaid
vacation pay or the bonuses and other compensation owed to him
under the Employment Agreement and Retention Agreement, which are
earned wages under the California Labor Code.
For over 25 years, the Plaintiff worked for Performance Team LLC.
Prior to the acquisition of Performance Team, Plaintiff Katab was
the President and Chief Operating Officer (COO). Defendant Kaplan
served as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).
Performance Team was a U.S.-based warehousing and distribution
company based in Los Angeles County.
On April 1, 2019, Damco completed the purchase of Performance Team.
In connection with the Purchase Transaction, Plaintiff Katab signed
the Employment Agreement.
Without limitation, the Plaintiff requests that Defendants be
enjoined and restrained from utilizing the invalid and
unenforceable Restrictive Covenants to prevent Plaintiff Katab and
similarly situated employees and former employees from fairly
competing with Performance Team.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan D. McCortney, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993
Telephone: (714) 513-5100
Facsimile: (714) 513-5130
E-mail: rmccortney@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Connie N. Bertram, Esq.
BERTRAM LLP
1717 K Street, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 787-5701
E-mail: cbertram@bertramllp.com
PINCHME.COM INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pinchme.com Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Pinchme.com Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04465 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PINCHme.com Inc. -- https://www.pinchme.com/ -- provides
advertising services. The Company offers a digital platform that
allows consumers to use sample products in exchange for their
feedback.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
POINT PICKUP: Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIC MEDEIROS and SHEILA MARCIL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. POINT PICKUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01056 (Aug. 2, 2021) is a class and collective
action complaint brought on behalf of individuals who have worked
as delivery drivers for Point Pickup in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, as well as a proposed collective of all Point Pickup
drivers in the United States.
Point Pickup is a merchandise delivery company that employs
delivery drivers who are dispatched through a mobile phone
application to deliver products from Wal-Mart, Shaw's, and Gamestop
to customers at their homes and businesses.
According to the complaint, Point Pickup misclassified all delivery
drivers as independent contractors when they are actually employees
for the purposes of the Massachusetts wage laws. Point Pickup
allegedly failed to pay minimum wage and overtime premium to
delivery drivers, and failing to reimburse them for all
work-related expenses.
Plaintiff Dominic Medeiros is an adult resident of Attleboro,
Massachusetts. He worked as a delivery driver for Point Pickup from
March 2021 to June 2021. Plaintiff Sheila Marcil is an adult
resident of Attleboro, Massachusetts. She has worked as a delivery
driver for Point Pickup since February 2021.
Point Pickup is a Connecticut-based delivery company that performs
deliveries for its business partners, such as Wal-Mart, Gamestop,
and Shaw's Supermarket.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Matthew W. Thomson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: zrubin@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
mthomson@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Bace, Esq.
BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
PO Box 9316
Boston, MA 02114
Telephone: (508) 922-8328
E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com
PREFERRED PUMP: Gamble Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Preferred Pump and
Equipment, L.P. The case is styled as Anthony Gamble, Jr.,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Preferred Pump and Equipment, L.P., a Texas
Limited Partnership, Case No. BCV-21-101825 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., Aug. 9, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Preferred Pump -- https://www.preferredpump.com/ -- is the leading
distributor of submersible water pumps, pump hoists, water well
equipment and water well accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: 818-265-1020
Fax: 818-265-1021
PRESSLER FELT: Amelko Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler, Felt &
Warshaw, LLP, et al. The case is styled as Oleg Amelko,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Pressler, Felt & Warshaw, LLP, Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04500 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Pressler, Felt, & Warshaw LLP -- https://www.paypressler.com/ -- is
a New Jersey-based debt collection law firm that operates in
multiple states, including New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settlement Reached in DACA Recipient's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MALDEF reports that David Rodriguez, a DACA recipient who applied
for an internship at The Procter & Gamble Company, and P&G, have
reached an agreement in Rodriguez v. P&G. The case sought to
address P&G’s policy and practice of screening out non-U.S.
citizens applicants unless they held a long-term work
authorization.
The case was filed as a putative class action in federal district
court in Miami on July 17, 2017 raising claims of discrimination
based on alienage in violation of federal section 1981. P&G denies
any wrongdoing and vigorously defended it policy over the course of
nearly three years of litigation.
In a filing on July 30, 2021, Mr. Rodriguez asked the Court for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement through which
P&G will ensure that DACA recipients will not be excluded from
consideration for internships and job opportunities. In addition to
DACA recipients, Temporary Protected Status ("TPS") holders,
individuals granted Deferred Enforced Departure ("DED"), Violence
Against Women Act ("VAWA") self-petitioners, and U and T visa
holders and derivatives of VAWA, U and T visas, will also be
eligible for employment consideration under the policy. In addition
to the policy change from which countless future qualified
non-citizens will benefit, P&G will establish a class fund for
individual payments to eligible class members.
"P&G is a major consumer company, and this settlement ensures that
well-qualified, work-authorized DACA recipients will be able to
contribute meaningfully to the company’s continued growth and
success." said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general
counsel.
"Access to internships and jobs like those offered by P&G is an
incredibly important issue for DACA recipients who have lived in
the U.S. since they were children and have gone to school -- high
school, college -- and are well-positioned for success in their
professional lives when given the opportunity," said Ossai Miazad,
lead counsel for Plaintiff.
P&G, in turn, stated that "P&G fully embraces diversity and
inclusion as do our employees who represent more than 140 different
nationalities. We support the Administration and Congress’ work
to find a legislative solution that provides both prospective
employees and employers certainty, and allows the US to continue to
benefit from the contributions of the over 600,000 Dreamers."
Plaintiff is represented by Outten & Golden LLP, MALDEF and Cimo
Mazer Mark PLLC
Proctor & Gamble is represented by Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. [GN]
PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS: Commisso Files Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Business
Systems. The case is styled as Paul Commisso, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Business
Systems doing business as: PracticeFirst Medical Management
Solutions, Case No. 5:21-cv-00896-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Aug. 10,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Professional Business Systems doing business as Practicefirst
Medical Management Solutions LLC --
https://www.practicefirstsecure.com/ -- provides billing, coding,
credentialing, enrollment, chart audits, compliance and practice
management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
PRONET GROUP: Faces Herrick Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PRONET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-015185 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., August 4, 2021) is a class
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a fax to the
Plaintiff's fax machine on or about June 16, 2018 in an attempt to
promote its services without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior
express consent. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's fax has
caused him actual harm, including aggravation and nuisance, the
loss of use of its line and fax machine during the receipt of the
fax and other out of pocket costs associated with receiving the
fax.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant
from sending unsolicited faxes to consumers' fax machines without
their prior express permission or invitation. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages and other relief as the Court deems just
and proper.
The Pronet Group, Inc. is a for-profit forensic engineering firm
that provides forensic engineering services – from initial
inspection to providing expert testimony in court. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
Fax: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
RADIUS GLOBAL: Layne Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Aymie Layne, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Radius Global Solutions
LLC, Pendrick Capital Partners II LLC, Case No.
6:21-cv-01277-WWB-EJK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Radius Global Solutions LLC -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ --
provides debt recovery services and customer contact
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
James L. Davidson, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
RAVALLI COUNTY SHERIFF: Evenson-Childs Files Suit in D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Ravalli County Sheriff's
Office. The case is styled as Teri Lea Evenson-Childs, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ravalli County
Sheriff's Office, Case No. 9:21-cv-00089-DLC-KLD (D. Mont., Aug. 9,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Act.
Ravalli County Sheriff -- https://ravalli.us/245/Sheriff -- is the
Sheriff's department in Hamilton, Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Constance Van Kley, Esq.
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP - MISSOULA
305 South 4th Street East, Suite 100
PO Box 7099
Missoula, MT 59807
Phone: (406) 523-3617
Fax: (406) 523-3636
Email: cgvankley@gmail.com
- and -
Rylee K. Sommers-Flanagan
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
P.O. Box 200801
Helena, MT 59620
Phone: (406) 444-4930
Email: ryleesf@gmail.com
RECEIVABLE SOLUTIONS: Potts Files FDCPA Suit in D. South Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Receivable Solutions,
LLC. The case is styled as Georgetta Potts, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. Receivable Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02517-DCN (D.S.C., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Receivable Solutions (RSi) -- https://rsircm.com/ -- has been
successfully providing AR Management and Collection Services for
over 20 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC
PO Box 11865
Columbia, SC 29211
Phone: (803) 509-6800
Fax: (855) 299-1656
Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com
RESIDEO TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Over Securities Lawsuit Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
Resideo Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: REZI), a leading global provider
of home comfort and security solutions and distributor of
commercial and residential security and audio-visual products, on
Aug. 3 disclosed that it has entered into a binding agreement in
principle to settle the pending securities class action litigation
arising from allegations with respect to statements and disclosures
made in 2019.
The proposed settlement calls for a payment of $55 million in
resolution of claims asserted against Resideo and all other
defendants. Approximately $39 million is expected to be funded with
proceeds from available insurance. Resideo recorded a $16 million
expense in its second quarter 2021 financial results to account for
the portion of the settlement it expects to fund. Including the
impact of the settlement, Resideo's GAAP operating profit is
expected to be $121 million for the second quarter 2021. Resideo
will release full second quarter 2021 financial results after the
market close on Thursday, August 5, 2021.
The settlement remains subject to final documentation, approval by
the court and is subject to the satisfaction of customary
conditions to effectiveness. A final non-appealable closure of the
litigation is expected towards the end of 2021.
About Resideo
Resideo is a leading global manufacturer and distributor of
technology-driven products and solutions that provide comfort,
security, energy efficiency and control to customers worldwide.
Building on a 130-year heritage, Resideo has a presence in more
than 150 million homes, with 15 million systems installed in homes
each year. We continue to serve more than 110,000 professionals
through leading distributors, including our ADI Global Distribution
business, which exports to more than 100 countries from nearly 200
stocking locations around the world. For more information about
Resideo, please visit www.resideo.com. [GN]
ROBERT ANDERSON: Discusses Class Action Over Medical Malpractice
----------------------------------------------------------------
wxyz.com reports that attorneys say there are now more than 900
people who are part of class action lawsuits alleging University of
Michigan Dr. Robert Anderson abused them.
The University of Michigan completed an investigation into the
allegations and released a report. It detailed horrific abuse and
inadequate policies to protect patients and students.
"There are still more questions than answers," said Jon Vaughn.
When at the University of Michigan, until 1990, Jon Vaughn was a
star running back. Dr. Robert Anderson, who is now deceased,
provided medical care for University of Michigan athletes.
Vaughn says he feels Dr. Robert Anderson recognized he was
suffering and took advantage of him right away. Vaughn's mom was
fighting breast cancer. Dr. Anderson subjected Vaughn to tests,
checking for cancer. Vaughn says he didn't know how prostate exams
were done at the time. He says they were not done appropriately.
During a doctor's appointment, Anderson told Vaughn he needed sperm
samples in order to treat him.
A university investigation detailed how inadequate policies allowed
Dr. Anderson to molest patients, often during inappropriate and
unneeded exams over the course of his 37 years as a University and
Athletic Department doctor. You can read the investigation here.
The report reveals Dr. Anderson worked at Ann Arbor Reproductive
Medicine, located on Clark Road in Ypsilanti, a practice later
bought by the University. Vaughn says the collection of sperm
samples is not in the report.
"He had access to our sperm. He had access to couples with
fertility issues. You are looking at a University, you know this
will go down as the greatest sex abuse rape, cover-up in the
history of sports, let alone the most insidious sexual abuse rape,
atrocity on US soil," said Vaughn.
Vaughn says Dr. Anderson also spoke about having a study with some
victims.
"He was like I am doing this andrology study on how to create the
perfect black athlete," said Vaughn.
Vaughn met with Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel. He says he
hopes she can help him and other victims get answers.
"Several questions surrounding Anderson's conduct at the university
remain unanswered," said Lynsey Mukomel, the press secretary for
Attorney General Dana Nessel. "It is a complex case that is
particularly challenging given that so many key players –
including Anderson, Bo Schembechler and Don Canham – are
deceased. With that said, we are exploring our options to determine
what, if anything, our office can do. We have not closed the door
on this issue."
"We again apologize for the pain they have suffered, and we remain
committed to resolving their claims through the court-guided,
confidential mediation process that is ongoing," said the
University of Michigan in a statement that shared a copy of the
investigation. "The university is committed to continuous
improvement in our policies and practices to promote student health
and safety."
"The not knowing is so painful," said Vaughn. [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ACRX), Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT), 360 DigiTech,
Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN), and Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRX)
Class Period: March 17, 2020 to February 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of
acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30
mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of
moderate-to-severe acute pain.
On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of
acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid
analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings,
such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments.
On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021,
the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning
promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an
'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display
(PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he
promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or
misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy
of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its
distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that
AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written
response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."
On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%,
to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA;
(ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims
and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in
certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the AcelRx class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ACRX
Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT)
Class Period: February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021
On May 5, 2021, Rocket Companies reported that it was on track to
achieve closed loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and
$87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65%
to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this
gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline
year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which
represented Rocket Companies' lowest quarterly gain on sale margin
in two years. The stunning collapse in Rocket Companies' gain on
sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions
purportedly being experienced by Rocket Companies during the Class
Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain
the results, Rocket Companies' Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp
decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three
factors: (i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to
Rocket Companies' lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a
compression in price spreads between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets. Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of
these trends began "at the end of Q1." On this news, the price of
Rocket Companies Class A common stock fell by nearly 17% to close
at $19.01 per share. As the market continued to digest the news in
the days that followed, the price of Rocket Companies Class A
common stock continued to decline, falling to a low of just $16.48
per share by May 11, 2021.
The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket Companies' gain on sale
margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a
result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets; (ii) Rocket Companies was engaged in a
price war and battle for market share with its primary competitors
in the wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in
Rocket Companies' Partner Network operating segment; (iii) the
adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result,
Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at
least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (iv) as a
result, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class
Period and allowed Rocket Companies to achieve historically high
gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket Companies' gain on sale
margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of
2019; (v) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand,
Rocket Companies' company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen
materially below pre-pandemic averages; and (vi) consequently,
defendants' positive statements about Rocket Companies' business
operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
For more information on the Rocket class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RKT
360 DigiTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: QFIN)
Class Period: April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 13, 2021
On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices.
On this news, 360 DigiTech's stock price fell $7.12 per share, or
21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.
On July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech confirmed
the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store and
quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company had
"submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company 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.
For more information on the 360 DigiTech class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/QFIN
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL)
Class Period: March 16, 2018 and July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021
On July 20, 2021, before market hours, Reuters published an article
entitled "In push to supply Tesla, Piedmont Lithium irks North
Carolina neighbors." Among other things, the article reported that
"[t]he company […] has not applied for a state mining permit or a
necessary zoning variance in Gaston County, just west of Charlotte,
despite telling investors since 2018 that it was on the verge of
doing so." The article went on to report that "[f]ive of the seven
members of the county's board of commissioners, who control zoning
changes, say they may block or delay the project[.]"
On this news, Piedmont shares fell $12.56 per share over the
trading day, or nearly 20%, to close at $50.52 per share on July
20, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Piedmont has not, and would not, follow its stated steps
or timeline to secure all proper and necessary permits; (ii)
Piedmont failed to inform relevant people and governmental
authorities of its actual plans; (iii) Piedmont failed to file
proper applications with relevant governmental authorities
(including state and local authorities); (iv) Piedmont and its
lithium business does not have "strong governmental support"; and
(v) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Piedmont Lithium class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PLL
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a
nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York,
California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and
other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the
country. For more information about the firm, please visit
www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]
SMASHBURGER IP: Faces Class Action Over Biweekly Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Max Kutner, writing for Law360, reports that Smashburger failed to
pay manual workers on a weekly basis as required by law, according
to a proposed class action filed on Aug. 2 in New York federal
court.
SOUTH COAST: CTA Seeks to Enjoin Enforcement of Rule 2305 in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT; The GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-06341 (C.D. Cal., August 5, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of state law, the
Clean Air Act, and the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1994.
The Plaintiff brings this action to declare void and to permanently
enjoin enforcement of Rule 2305, a regional warehouse regulation
that aims to force the marketplace's accelerated acquisition and
use of zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) heavy-duty
trucks. The district exceeds its limited authority to adopt
indirect source review (ISR) rules under the California Health and
Safety Code since Rule 2305 has the purpose and effect of
interfering with interstate freight operations, facilities and
equipment on an intra-state, sub-regional basis. Moreover, Rule
2305 is not truly concerned with indirect sources because it does
not address vehicle trips from workers coming to or leaving the
site, the construction equipment used in developing new warehouses,
the length of trips to and from the warehouse, or any direct
emissions from the warehouse itself. Rule 2305, by necessity and
design, is entirely about the trucks, the suit says.
California Trucking Association (CTA) is an association devoted to
advancing the interests of its motor-carrier members in
California.
South Coast Air Quality Management District is a political
subdivision of California responsible for air pollution control in
the state's counties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Robinson, Esq.
Marne S. Sussman, Esq.
Emily M. Lieban, Esq.
Nicholas A. Dellefave, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Three Park Plaza, Suite 1400
Irvine, CA 92614-8537
Telephone: (949) 833-8550
Facsimile: (949) 833-8540
E-mail: david.robinson@hklaw.com
marne.sussman@hklaw.com
emily.lieban@hklaw.com
nicholas.dellefave@hklaw.com
STABLE ROAD: Faces Depoy Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
DREW DEPOY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. STABLE ROAD ACQUISITION CORP., MOMENTUS INC., SRC-NI
HOLDINGS, LLC, BRIAN KABOT, JAMES NORRIS and MIKHAIL KOKORICH, Case
No. 2:21-cv-06287 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2021) is a federal securities
class action brought on behalf of all purchasers of Stable Road
securities (the "Class") between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021,
inclusive, 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.
According to the complaint, in November 2019, SRC-NI Holdings
("Sponsor") and Defendants Kabot and Norris took Stable Road public
via an initial public offering (the "IPO"). While Stable Road did
not identify any target companies at the time of the IPO, the IPO
offering materials stated that the Company planned to pursue an
acquisition focused in the cannabis sector. IPO offering materials
claimed that Sponsor and Stable Road management, including
Defendants Kabot and Norris, would "[c]onduct rigorous due
diligence" of any target possibilities, "including a review of
company-specific information as well as an analysis of the overall
industry and competitive landscape."
The IPO offering materials provided "Acquisition Criteria" that
would purportedly be used to evaluate target companies by Sponsor
and Stable Road executives.
Based on the IPO registration statement, Stable Road was required
to acquire a target business with an aggregate fair market value of
at least 80% of the net assets held in trust from the IPO proceeds
and to do so within 18 months of the November 2019 IPO. In the
event Stable Road did not complete an initial business combination,
the Company was obligated to redeem 100% of its outstanding public
shares equal to the aggregate trust proceeds plus interest.
Moreover, shareholders could redeem their shares at the time of the
initial business combination if they did not want to retain a
continuing interest in the business after the transaction. If
enough shareholders redeemed their shares, a deal would not be
economically feasible.
However, if Stable Road was successful in completing an initial
business combination within the allotted time frame, Sponsor and
various Company insiders would be richly rewarded. Specifically,
Stable Road had issued founder shares to Sponsor in connection with
the IPO equal to approximately 20% of the Company's outstanding
common shares after the IPO, which Sponsor held for the benefit of
Defendant Kabot, Defendant Norris, and other Company insiders. The
founder shares were valued in the proxy materials for a merger at
$55 million as of April 5, 2021, with the founder shares held by
Defendant Kabot valued at $5.7 million and the founder shares held
by Defendant Norris valued at $1 million as of this date. These
shares would expire worthless if the Company failed to complete its
initial business combination. As a result, Defendants were highly
incentivized to complete an initial business combination and to
convince shareholders to approve a merger within the allotted time
frame, says the suit.
On July 13, 2021, the SEC announced charges against Stable Road,
Sponsor, Momentus, Defendant Kabot and Defendant Kokorich for
making "misleading claims about Momentus's technology and about
national security risks associated with Kokorich." The release
stated that all parties other than Defendant Kokorich had settled
the charges against them for $8 million in total, while the case
against Defendant Kokorich continued.
On this news, the price of Stable Road securities plummeted. On
July 14, 2021, the price of Stable Road Class A stock fell $1.22
per share, or 10%, to close at $10.66 per share, the suit alleges.
Plaintiff DePoy acquired Stable Road securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.
Defendant Stable Road is a special purpose acquisition company, or
"SPAC." The Company maintains its principal executive offices in
Venice Beach, California. Stable Road Class A common stock,
warrants and units trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market
("NASDAQ") under the symbols "SRAC," "SRACW" and "SRACU,"
respectively. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.
Momentus is a private company that purports to operate in the
commercial space industry.
Defendant Momentus was an acquisition target of Stable Road during
the Class Period. It is a private commercial space company
headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
Defendant SRC-NI Holdings, LLC ("Sponsor") served as the SPAC
Sponsor of Stable Road during the Class Period.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
TACO INN: Hidalgo Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------
LIDIA VICENTE HIDALGO, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. TACO INN CORP. dba TACO INN TAQUERIA and MARGARITA
ORTEZ, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-06525 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2,
2021) seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff contends that Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying her and other
similarly situated employees either the FLSA overtime rate (of time
and one-half), or the New York State overtime rate (of time and
one-half), in direct violation of the FLSA and NYLL and the
supporting federal and New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.
Plaintiff Hidalgo was employed by the Defendants in New York
County, New York, to work as a cook/food preparer and cleaner at
Defendants' Restaurant known as "Taco Inn" from October 2020
through July 2, 2021, without interruption.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
10 Grand Central
155 East 44th Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
TAKATA CORP: Woman Sentenced for Falsely Claiming Airbag Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Cox, writing for WKRG, reports that a Mobile woman was
sentenced in federal court on Aug. 4 for falsely claiming personal
injuries and vehicle damage from defective airbags.
The U.S. District Court sentenced Tracey Lanette Adams, 48, to
three years of probation, 80 hours of community service, and a
$1,000 fine for sending by mail a false claim for personal injuries
and vehicle damage allegedly caused by defective Takata airbag
inflators that sent shrapnel flying when they deployed.
According to court documents, Adams used pictures from the internet
and altered medical records that she submitted by mail from Mobile
to try to obtain over $13,000 from the Takata Individual
Restitution Fund (TIRF). The TIRF was established in the Eastern of
District of Michigan when Takata Corporation was sentenced for wire
fraud.
In February 2017, the court there ordered that Takata Corporation
pay $125,000,000 into a fund to compensate those injured or who
would be injured by its defective airbag deflators. The Special
Master appointed to administer the fund oversees the evaluation of
claims seeking compensation.
Evaluators saw red flags as it considered Adams's claim, including
photographs Adams had altered from the internet that she said were
of her and her injuries. When the TIRF denied her claim, she
appealed and submitted once again the false documents and
photographs. A face-to-face interview with the Mobile FBI confirmed
she was not the person in the photographs and had not suffered the
serious facial injuries depicted. Adams did not receive any
compensation. [GN]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Restricts Generic Entry, Value Drug Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03500 (E.D. Pa., August 5, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for conspiracy in restraint of
trade, monopolization, and conspiracy to monopolize.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a
horizontal conspiracy to monopolize the market for Colcrys, a drug
used for the treatment of gout flares and familial Mediterranean
fever, and its AB-rated generic drugs. The Defendants concealed
their conspiracy in part in the form of a distribution joint
venture between Takeda and Par. Under the joint venture, Par would
sell Takeda's product instead of its own, to maintain Takeda's
monopoly, restrict output of Par's competing product, allocate 100%
of the market to Takeda's product for several years, and share with
Takeda in the corresponding monopoly prices, all at the expense of
purchasers and patients. The Defendants' conspiracy severely harmed
competition in the market for Colcrys and generic Colcrys, while it
lasted and for some time thereafter. It restricted output of
generic Colcrys, kept Colcrys prices at supracompetitive levels,
and delayed their fall to competitive levels, the suit alleges.
Value Drug Company is a distributor of pharmaceuticals products
located at 195 Theater Drive, Duncansville, Pennsylvania.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is a pharmaceutical company,
with its principal place of business located at One Takeda Parkway,
Deerfield, Illinois.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern,
Pennsylvania.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business and corporate headquarters at One Ram
Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York.
Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its
place of business at 311 Bonnie Circle, Corona, California.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is pharmaceutical company, with
its principal place of business at 5 Basel St., Petach Tikva,
Israel.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with
its principal place of business at 400 Interpace Parkway,
Parsippany, New Jersey.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a pharmaceutical company, with its
principal place of business at 400 Crossing Boulevard, Third Floor,
Bridgewater, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Kohn, Esq.
Joseph Lukens, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
1617 JFK Blvd, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
jlukens@faruqilaw.com
- and –
Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
ODOM & DES ROCHES LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 522-0077
E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
akelly@odrlaw.com
- and –
Russell Chorush, Esq.
HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP
1111 Bagby Street, Suite 2100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 221-2000
E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com
- and –
Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
Dan Litvin, Esq.
GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 398-0055
E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
dlitvin@garwingerstein.com
- and –
David F. Sorensen, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
- and –
Susan Segura, Esq.
David C. Raphael, Esq.
Erin R. Leger, Esq.
SMITH SEGURA RAPHAEL LEGER LLP
221 Ansley Blvd.
Alexandria, LA 71303
Telephone: (318) 445-4480
E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
draphael@ssrllp.com
eleger@ssrllp.com
TED BAKER: Faces Margarian Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHUSHANIK MARGARIAN, an individual, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. TED BAKER
LIMITED, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-06228-SB-RAO (C.D. Cak., Aug. 2, 2021)
is a class action brought against the Defendant Ted Baker for their
false and deceptive pricing practices in connection with their sale
of "Ted Baker" clothing, accessories, and other items on their
website and in their stores.
Allegedly, Ted Baker's false and deceptive pricing practices is
accomplished by advertising deeply discounted sales with products
that are not actually on sale. For example, a Ted Baker
advertisement will include a picture of a product with the words
"Up to 50% off" under the product. The consumer is led to believe
that that product is included in that sale, when in reality that is
not true.
Ted Baker has engaged in deceptive advertising as a frequent
business practice, thereby misleading consumers. Ted Baker does
this by tricking consumers into thinking certain products are on
sale when in reality they are not, says the suit.
The Plaintiff appears in this action on behalf of herself, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and pursuant to statutory
authority provided under theUnfair Competition Law and the False
Advertising Law.
The Defendant operates Ted Baker retail stores and the tedbaker.com
website. Ted Baker is an omni-channel specialty retailer of
high-quality clothing, shoes, accessories, and home items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
Armen Margarian, Esq.
Shushanik Margarian, Esq.
THE MARGARIAN LAW FIRM
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 210
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 553-1000
Facsimile: (818) 553-1005
E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com
armen@margarianlaw.com
shushanik@margarianlaw.com
TESLA INC: Ex Employee Awarded $1 Million Over Workplace Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
rochesterfirst.com reports that Tesla has been ordered to pay
roughly $1 million to a former employee who filed a legal complaint
alleging he was called the N-word while working in the electric
automaker's factory in California.
Melvin Berry was hired by Tesla as a materials handler in 2015, but
quit only 17 months later after being harassed on the job,
according to court documents. Earlier this year, Berry hired San
Francisco employment lawyer Jeannette Vaccaro to represent him in a
private arbitration hearing with Tesla. Vaccaro argued that Tesla
supervisors ignored Berry's complaints when he told them about
being called the N-word by co-workers.
Arbitrator Elaine Rushing said in her ruling that there was
evidence that two Tesla supervisors used racial slurs against Berry
and that those instance caused him emotional and psychological
harm. Rushing noted that "case law is clear that one instance of a
supervisor directing the N-word at a subordinate is sufficient to
constitute severe harassment."
"No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly
calls to mind our country's long and brutal struggle to overcome
racism and discrimination against African Americans," she wrote.
News of the $1 million award was first reported by Bloomberg.
Berry in 2017 filed two complaints against his supervisors at Tesla
with California's fair employment office, according to court
documents. In his complaint, Berry said that after he confronted
them at the Fremont, California, factory for calling him the racial
slur, he was forced to work longer hours and push a heavier cart of
materials.
Although Berry was technically awarded $1 million, more than
$755,000 will go toward attorney and legal fees. He will receive
roughly $266,000 in damages, court documents show.
"We hope that this award of over $1 million will inspire change at
Tesla and send a message to all employers that harassment and
discrimination have no place at work," Vaccaro said in a
statement.
The Berry case is one of three racial discrimination lawsuits filed
by former employees against Tesla since 2017.
In a class-action lawsuit representing more than 100 employees,
former Tesla employee Marcus Vaughn alleges that White co-workers
engaged in racist behavior, including using racial slurs against
Black employees. Vaughn and others at the Fremont factory were
regularly called the N-word by supervisors at the Fremont factory,
according to the complaint. Another Black employee said in court
documents that he had been called the N-word about 100 times and
saw KKK signs and swastikas spray-painted on bathroom stalls.
In a third lawsuit, two former Tesla employees, a Black father and
son, Owen Diaz and Demetric Di-az, also said they were subject to
"severe and pervasive racial harassment" while working at the
Fremont factory in 2015 and 2016. Di-az worked at Tesla as a
production associate while his father worked as an elevator
operator, court documents state. Their case is scheduled to go to
trial in September.
Tesla did not immediately reply to requests for comment on Berry's
case. The company has denied the allegations made by Berry and the
others. In a 2017 blogpost on the company's website titled "Hotbed
of Misinformation," Tesla states it "is absolutely against any form
of discrimination, harassment or unfair treatment of any kind."
"Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an
anti-discrimination course," the company said in the post, adding
that "our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000
in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop
all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it as close to
zero as possible." [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Blank Rome Attorney Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Oberly, Esq., of Blank Rome LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that corporate defendants besieged by proliferating
bet-the-company privacy and consumer class action lawsuits recently
scored a victory in the US Supreme Court with implications for data
breach victims.
The court's opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez raises the bar
plaintiffs must surmount in order to pursue litigation in federal
court in the absence of any tangible, real-world injury.
Moving forward, defendants will have broader powers to secure the
dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal court alleging only a future
risk of harm or injury. Moreover, plaintiffs will be precluded from
filing suits for bare statutory, procedural violations due to the
inability to establish Article III standing under such
circumstances.
With that said, plaintiffs may be able to avoid the roadblocks
created by the TransUnion case by filing suit in state courts,
where the threshold for establishing standing is much lower.
Overview of Article III standing
'Standing' refers to the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court.
To establish standing under Article III of the US Constitution, a
plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) causation;
and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.
The first element underpins most consumer and privacy class action
lawsuits. An injury-in-fact must be "concrete, particularized, and
actual or imminent".
If a plaintiff alleges only an increased risk of future harm, the
potential injury must be deemed impending or there must be a
perceived substantial risk of the harm transpiring for standing to
exist.
TransUnion background
Some 8,185 TransUnion customers brought suit against the US credit
reporting agency for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) after alerts were added to their credit files indicating
that their name was a "potential match" to a name on the US
Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) list
of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other serious criminals.
Only 1,853 of these individuals had their credit reports
disseminated to third parties when containing OFAC alerts.
The question before the court was whether class members had Article
III standing to assert their FCRA claims. That question focused on
the Article III requirement that a plaintiff's injury be "concrete"
-- that is, "real, and not abstract".
Supreme Court opinion
The Supreme Court held that only those 1,853 class members whose
allegedly injurious reports were disseminated to third parties had
suffered a concrete harm sufficient to constitute a cognizable
injury-in-fact that conferred standing.
The court reasoned that the class members who had their reports
distributed to third parties were able to establish standing
because their injury possessed a "close relationship" to a harm
traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
American courts -- namely, the reputational harm associated with
the tort of defamation.
These TransUnion plaintiffs were essentially labeled as potential
terrorists, drug traffickers, or serious criminals as a result of
their credit reports containing the OFAC alerts being shared with
third parties.
The court concluded that this injury was sufficiently related to
the harm that arises when a defamatory statement that subjects an
individual to hatred, contempt, or ridicule is relayed to a third
party.
Conversely, the court reasoned that because publication is
"essential to liability" in a defamation suit, the mere existence
of inaccurate information -- absent dissemination -- falls short of
constituting a concrete injury for purposes of standing.
Implications for data breach class actions
The TransUnion opinion is a big win for defendants, especially
those involved in class action litigation. First and foremost, the
decision significantly increases the requirements for plaintiffs to
establish Article III standing to sue in federal court.
Where plaintiffs do not allege any type of intangible harm
traditionally associated with a common law tort, defendants should
now be able to assert successful standing challenges and can point
to the TransUnion opinion as persuasive support for this argument.
Furthermore, the mere risk of future harm alone is no longer
sufficient to confer standing. This is particularly significant in
the context of data breach class action litigations, where suits
are often filed in the immediate aftermath of a cyber-attack even
where no actual harm -- in the form of identity theft or fraud --
has yet occurred.
At the same time, the ruling also places additional limitations on
claimed "informational injuries", which are commonly alleged in
class actions where damages are tenuous. Here, the court held that
an "asserted informational injury that causes no adverse effects
cannot satisfy Article III". After TransUnion, where no subsequent
type of harm is shown, the mere alleged deprivation of information
alone cannot establish standing.
With that said, the TransUnion ruling may ultimately turn out to be
a hollow victory for corporate defendants. The decision may have
the unintended consequence of funneling future class action suits
into state court venues where the bar for establishing standing --
while varied -- is generally much lower than its federal
counterpart.
"Data Breach Class Actions: U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Tilt
the Odds in Favor of Defendant Organizations," by David J. Oberly
was published in The Daily Swig on August 3, 2021. Reprinted with
permission. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Consumer Suit Raises Bar for Bringing Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Oberly, writing for Portswigger, reports that corporate
defendants besieged by proliferating bet-the-company privacy and
consumer class action lawsuits recently scored a victory in the US
Supreme Court with implications for data breach victims.
The court's opinion in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez raises the bar
plaintiffs must surmount in order to pursue litigation in federal
court in the absence of any tangible, real-world injury.
Moving forward, defendants will have broader powers to secure the
dismissal of lawsuits filed in federal court alleging only a future
risk of harm or injury. Moreover, plaintiffs will be precluded from
filing suits for bare statutory, procedural violations due to the
inability to establish Article III standing under such
circumstances.
With that said, plaintiffs may be able to avoid the roadblocks
created by the TransUnion case by filing suit in state courts,
where the threshold for establishing standing is much lower.
Overview of Article III standing
'Standing' refers to the right to bring a lawsuit in federal court.
To establish standing under Article III of the US Constitution, a
plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury-in-fact; (2) causation;
and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.
The first element underpins most consumer and privacy class action
lawsuits. An injury-in-fact must be "concrete, particularized, and
actual or imminent".
If a plaintiff alleges only an increased risk of future harm, the
potential injury must be deemed impending or there must be a
perceived substantial risk of the harm transpiring for standing to
exist.
TransUnion background
Some 8,185 TransUnion customers brought suit against the US credit
reporting agency for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) after alerts were added to their credit files indicating
that their name was a "potential match" to a name on the US
Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control's (OFAC) list
of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other serious criminals.
Only 1,853 of these individuals had their credit reports
disseminated to third parties when containing OFAC alerts.
The question before the court was whether class members had Article
III standing to assert their FCRA claims. That question focused on
the Article III requirement that a plaintiff's injury be "concrete"
-- that is, "real, and not abstract".
Supreme Court opinion
The Supreme Court held that only those 1,853 class members whose
allegedly injurious reports were disseminated to third parties had
suffered a concrete harm sufficient to constitute a cognizable
injury-in-fact that conferred standing.
The court reasoned that the class members who had their reports
distributed to third parties were able to establish standing
because their injury possessed a "close relationship" to a harm
traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
American courts -- namely, the reputational harm associated with
the tort of defamation.
These TransUnion plaintiffs were essentially labeled as potential
terrorists, drug traffickers, or serious criminals as a result of
their credit reports containing the OFAC alerts being shared with
third parties.
The court concluded that this injury was sufficiently related to
the harm that arises when a defamatory statement that subjects an
individual to hatred, contempt, or ridicule is relayed to a third
party.
Conversely, the court reasoned that because publication is
"essential to liability" in a defamation suit, the mere existence
of inaccurate information -- absent dissemination -- falls short of
constituting a concrete injury for purposes of standing.
Implications for data breach class actions
The TransUnion opinion is a big win for defendants, especially
those involved in class action litigation. First and foremost, the
decision significantly increases the requirements for plaintiffs to
establish Article III standing to sue in federal court.
Where plaintiffs do not allege any type of intangible harm
traditionally associated with a common law tort, defendants should
now be able to assert successful standing challenges and can point
to the TransUnion opinion as persuasive support for this argument.
Furthermore, the mere risk of future harm alone is no longer
sufficient to confer standing. This is particularly significant in
the context of data breach class action litigations, where suits
are often filed in the immediate aftermath of a cyber-attack even
where no actual harm -- in the form of identity theft or fraud --
has yet occurred.
At the same time, the ruling also places additional limitations on
claimed "informational injuries", which are commonly alleged in
class actions where damages are tenuous. Here, the court held that
an "asserted informational injury that causes no adverse effects
cannot satisfy Article III". After TransUnion, where no subsequent
type of harm is shown, the mere alleged deprivation of information
alone cannot establish standing.
With that said, the TransUnion ruling may ultimately turn out to be
a hollow victory for corporate defendants. The decision may have
the unintended consequence of funneling future class action suits
into state court venues where the bar for establishing standing --
while varied -- is generally much lower than its federal
counterpart. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Epiq Discusses Supreme Court Ruling on Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Epiq, in an article for JDSupra, reports that with all the focus on
data privacy, it is no surprise that courts are weighing in on this
topic so that consumers can have more guidance about their legal
options and organizations can tailor their breach response plans.
On June 25, 2021, the issue of standing made it all the way up to
the U.S. Supreme Court in TransUnion v. Ramirez, which was a
limiting, business-friendly decision. With a 5-4 vote, the justices
held that individuals who have their data compromised in a breach
but cannot show tangible harm, lack class action standing. While
this provides clarification on when it is appropriate to file
consumer privacy and data breach claims in federal court, the
floodgates are now open for state court filings. Class action
litigators, state judges, and organizations handling private
consumer data need to understand what this means going forward and
take steps to prepare.
SCOTUS Decision
TransUnion is a credit reporting company that mistakenly put
terrorist labels on some consumer files. A class comprised of 8,185
people sued the company under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
and were awarded both statutory and punitive damages at trial
amounting to around $60 million. The issue before the Supreme Court
was whether standing existed, as most of the class action
plaintiffs did not have their files sent to third parties. The
court concluded that without any concrete harm, there was no
standing. Only 1,853 of the Class Members had their inaccurate
files sent out which the court found was reputational harm
sufficient to establish standing. However, there was not standing
for the remaining 6,332 individuals since all they could show was a
mere statutory violation without concrete harm. The court also
concluded the speculative harm was not enough, which referred to
the potential risk that the files with terrorist designations could
be shared in the future.
Based on the court's ruling, Transunion has significantly lower
liability and damages to payout as a result of this breach. Going
forward, Class Members filing privacy and breach cases in federal
court need to establish injury to their reputation or monetary loss
to assert standing. This is a much higher bar to reach and leaves
no room to merely assert an injury based on statutory violations
under the FCRA or other laws that invoke consumer privacy rights.
Predictions and Preparation
Besides limiting the pool and scope of federal class actions, there
are other repercussions that will stem from the Transunion
decision. To understand what is to come, it is important to
backtrack a few years to the Spokeo decision handed down in 2016 by
the Supreme Court. This was the first time the court ruled that a
concrete injury is necessary to file suit under the FCRA and only
having a procedural violation is insufficient. Since then, privacy
class actions have been popping up more in state courts,
specifically those based on violations of biometric privacy laws,
which has been a hot topic. The Transunion decision built on this
principle further by clearly defining what constitutes a concrete
injury and taking speculative harm out of the running.
Because of this, it is safe to say that consumers will be even more
inclined to turn to state courts with their data breach and privacy
matters, even when based on a federal statute, since state courts
are generally more consumer friendly and lenient on standing. As
such, organizations should not discount potential liability for
individuals that cannot establish concrete harm and account for
increased state court filings in their litigation readiness plans.
While the litigation risk is reduced federally, the risk of state
filings remains and will likely increase dramatically. An
organization's data breach response should remain expedient and
thorough, regardless if the breach caused tangible harm. For
breaches involving identity theft or grave mishandling of data
resulting in widespread distribution of private information, it is
important to still anticipate federal court filings that will pass
standing requirements. In matters where a data breach response was
fast and effective, it will be much easier for organizations to
defend federal court class actions, limit liability, and achieve
dismissal based on lack of standing.
Another thing to expect is further input from the courts, both at
the federal and state levels, about harm that data breaches or
inaccurate information like a terrorism designation can cause to
someone down the road. While an organization can have a quick and
effective response to a breach that greatly limits the fallout,
this alone does not mean that a tidbit of false or personal
information did not make it out into the digital sphere, which can
have an endless reach. This is a very hard thing to measure, as the
harm could result from nothing too serious reputationally or
measurable losses if the inaccurate information resurfaces. It will
be interesting to see if any courts allow for this speculative harm
in future cases involving data privacy or if the Supreme Court
revisits this principle again if and when there is a shift to a
more consumer-friendly bench. [GN]
TRANSUNION LLC: King & Spalding Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June
25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a decision in TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, a highly anticipated appeal that we previously covered in
our March and December issues last year. In a 5–4 opinion, the
Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's judgment in
favor of a class asserting claims under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA"), holding that significant portions of the class had
not demonstrated that they had standing to pursue their claims. In
so doing, the Supreme Court drew upon its prior precedent in Spokeo
v. Robins to further clarify the "concreteness" requirement for
Article III standing, particularly as applied to intangible harms
flowing from statutory violations. Significantly, the Court held
that the mere risk of future harm -- without more -- cannot
constitute concrete harm in a suit for damages, absent evidence
that the risk of future harm actually materialized or that the
class members were independently harmed by their exposure to the
risk itself.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against TransUnion for
including in Plaintiff's credit file an alert indicating that he
might be on the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets
Control's ("OFAC") list of Specially Designated Nationals ("SDNs")
prohibited from doing business in the United States.
Plaintiff brought claims under the FCRA, alleging that (1)
TransUnion failed to maintain reasonable procedures for assuring
maximum possible accuracy when preparing a consumer report about
him and (2) it failed to disclose the OFAC-related information and
to provide him with a summary of his rights in the consumer
disclosure it provided to him.
At trial, the parties stipulated that TransUnion disseminated
consumer reports containing the challenged OFAC information on only
1,853 of the 8,185 class members (as opposed to only maintaining
allegedly inaccurate information about consumers in TransUnion's
own files). Plaintiff did not offer any evidence that the class
members were actually injured beyond his own experiences. A jury
found in favor of Plaintiff and the class and assessed $60 million
in classwide damages, finding that TransUnion willfully violated
its obligations under the FCRA. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the bulk of the district court's rulings, with the
exception of a reduction in punitive damages (resulting in an
amended judgment of roughly $40 million).
Notably, however, the Ninth Circuit agreed with TransUnion that
"every member of a class certified under Rule 23 must satisfy the
basic requirements of Article III standing at the final stage of a
money damages suit when class members are to be awarded individual
monetary damages" -- a previously unsettled issue in the Ninth
Circuit (and certain other circuits as well).
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment, and in so doing
clarified the definition of "concrete injury" that was left
unsettled in the Court's previous opinion in Spokeo.
The Supreme Court began its analysis by expressly holding that
"every class member must have Article III standing in order to
recover individual damages."
The Court declined, however, to address the distinct question of
whether every class member must demonstrate standing at the class
certification stage -- an issue that has divided courts of
appeals.
Moreover, the Court reiterated that class member standing must be
shown at every stage of the litigation, "with the manner and degree
of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation."
And standing must be shown "for each claim that [class members]
press and for each form of relief that they seek."
The Supreme Court also clarified Spokeo's language stating that a
"risk of real harm" can be sufficient to confer standing in some
circumstances. The Court agreed with TransUnion's argument that "in
a suit for damages, the mere risk of future harm, standing alone,
cannot qualify as a concrete harm—at least unless the exposure to
the risk of future harm itself causes a separate concrete harm." As
the Court explained, "[n]o concrete harm, no standing."
Accordingly, a risk of real harm must either (1) materialize into
the actual harm, or (2) cause some independent harm to confer
standing.
Applying its standing analysis to the case at hand, the Court held
that only those 1,853 class members whose inaccurate reports were
disseminated had standing to pursue a reasonable-procedures claim
under the FCRA. In contrast, the other 6,332 class members lacked
standing because their consumer reports were not disseminated to
third parties and because Plaintiff had presented no evidence of
any independent harm (e.g., emotional distress) visited on these
class members.
On the FCRA disclosure claims, the Supreme Court held that an
"asserted informational injury" -- like the denial of information
to which one has a legal right -- "that causes no adverse effects
cannot satisfy Article III." In other words, the failure to provide
information -- even if required by a federal law—is not enough on
its own to confer standing. Plaintiffs must show some additional
harm resulting from the deprivation of information, such as -- like
the Court noted—emotional distress.
Because the class members (other than the named plaintiff) had not
demonstrated that they suffered any "downstream consequences" --
such as confusion, distress, or a hindrance in their ability to
correct erroneous information before it was sent to a third party
-- the Supreme Court held that they did not have standing to bring
their disclosure claims.
Justice Thomas -- in a dissent joined by Justices Breyer,
Sotomayor, and Kagan -- took issue with the majority's
pronouncement that "under Article III, an injury in law is not an
injury in fact." Rejecting the notion that the Court "should be in
the business of second-guessing private rights," Justice Thomas
opined that the majority's approach undermined separation-of-powers
principles by rendering federal courts the sole arbiters of whether
legal rights created by Congress can be enforced in federal court.
In a footnote, he observed that the majority's decision may amount
to a "pyrrhic victory for TransUnion," as state courts could
ultimately become the exclusive forum to adjudicate these types of
class actions, even though the statutory rights at issue are
creatures of federal law.
Echoing Spokeo, the Supreme Court's decision in Ramirez reiterated
that a plaintiff seeking to establish standing based on a statutory
violation must show that the violation resulted in real harm beyond
the mere invasion of a legal right. Ramirez also underscores the
evidentiary burden plaintiffs face in damages cases predicated upon
an increased risk of future harm. For instance, the Court
approvingly cited language from Judge McKeown's dissenting opinion
in the Ninth Circuit, which concluded that a material risk of
concrete harm could not be presumed because Plaintiff failed to
present evidence establishing "a serious likelihood of disclosure."
Finally, while the Court left open the question whether absent
class members must prove standing at the class certification stage,
courts ought to consider the evidence needed to answer that
ultimate question in assessing Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance
requirement. [GN]
TROPICALE FOODS: Helados Mexico Label "Deceptive," Tavake Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LEONA TAVAKE and SERGIO PEREZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TROPICALE FOODS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-06058-JCS (N.D. Cal., August 5, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising
Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of
paletas. The Defendant advertised its paletas with the
representation Helados Mexico emblazoned on the front. However,
contrary to the representation, the products are not from Mexico.
The Defendant sold more of the products and at higher prices than
it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers. Had the Plaintiffs
and Class members known the truth, they would not have bought the
product or would have paid less for it, says the suit.
Tropicale Foods, LLC is a manufacturer of frozen novelty products,
with its principal place of business in Ontario, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and –
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit From Students Over LGBTQ+ Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia George at dailypress.com reports that Jamie Lord was told
she was going to hell.
She was told gay people were pedophiles and child molesters.
And she was told if she brought her girlfriend on campus at Regent
University, where Lord is a law student, she could be kicked out of
school.
Lord is one of 40 current and former students at Christian colleges
and universities named as plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Education.
At issue is the religious exemption to Title IX, the 1972 law
prohibiting sex-based discrimination against students at schools
that receive federal funds. The Religious Exemption Accountability
Project (REAP), the nonprofit that filed the suit, claims that the
religious exemption has allowed schools to continue with
discriminatory practices.
The suit aims to "put an end to the U.S. Department of Education's
complicity in the abuses and unsafe conditions thousands of LGBTQ+
students endure at hundreds of taxpayer-funded, religious colleges
and universities."
A spokesperson for Regent declined to comment on Lord's claims,
citing federal privacy laws.
"Regent University upholds Biblical values and teaches traditional
Christian principles," the spokesperson said in a statement. ". . .
as followers of Christ, Regent staff and faculty are committed to
treating every student with love, dignity, and respect."
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon in March with
33 initial plaintiffs. In June, seven more - including Lord -
joined.
In court documents, students and alums described being forced into
conversion therapy, facing expulsion, sexual and physical abuse,
"as well as the less visible, but no less damaging, consequences of
institutionalized shame, fear, anxiety and loneliness."
Lord, 23, grew up in Columbia, South Carolina, with dreams of
becoming a detective. She graduated from University of South
Carolina with a bachelor's degree in criminology and decided law
school would be a good fit. Her family wasn't particularly
religious but she said she was excited to attend Regent University,
lured by its high bar exam pass rate and the sizable scholarship
offered.
At an event for accepted students in the spring of 2019, Lord said
she pulled a professor aside, informed him she was a lesbian and
asked if that would hinder her ability to fit in at Regent.
"He said that they loved diversity, that they have great
conversations in the classroom and that the love all sorts of
different people," Lord said in a recent interview near her home in
Virginia Beach. "Of course, I took his word on it."
Instead, Lord said she has endured years of discrimination at the
hands of Regent staff because of her sexuality. She said she was
routinely berated in and outside of class, and her mental health
suffered.
"A teacher told me I would go to hell for being a lesbian and that
if I prayed hard enough, God would save me from my sinful ways,"
she said.
She said she felt anxious and alone, unable to concentrate in class
because of frequent comments about how "gay people are pedophiles"
and that they "shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt children."
At first, Lord made efforts to "seem straight" - changing how she
talked and dressed and hiding that she had a girlfriend. She said
she soon grew exhausted of concealing a part of herself and
listening to members of her school community condemn LGBTQ+
people.
She said she informed a dean that a professor was harassing her
because of her sexual orientation, but nothing changed. And the
dean told Lord that, per the school's policy, she could be kicked
out of the school for having "premarital sex," even though they
could not give her an answer as to what they defined premarital sex
as in a lesbian relationship, according to the complaint.
"If he had just told me the truth right then and there I wouldn't
have come," Lord says now, remembering the reassurance she received
at the event for accepted students.
She first learned of the lawsuit on Facebook this spring. "That's
exactly what I'm going through," she thought.
Regent University was founded in 1978 by Evangelical broadcaster
Pat Robertson, who remains the school's president and chancellor.
Regent has some 11,000 students on its 70-acre campus in Virginia
Beach and online around the world.
All students are "required to sign a document agreeing to fully
accept the university's Stand of Personal Conduct" upon enrolling.
The handbook prohibits "sexual misconduct," which includes
"homosexual conduct" alongside pornography, premarital sex and
adultery. Other banned behavior includes lying, profanity, racial
and sexual harassment, and use or possession of alcohol and tobacco
on university property.
Lord admits she didn't read the code of conduct in full before
starting at Regent - but it seemed like very few students did, she
added.
And even if she had read the 90-plus page handbook before signing,
she said she would have likely signed anyway. By then, she had paid
tuition, moved to a new state and rented housing. "There was no
withdrawing at that point," she said.
Title IX is a federal civil rights law but it does not apply to
institutions "controlled by a religious organization" if adherence
to the law is inconsistent with the organization's "religious
tenets."
The Biden administration has presented itself as a fervent ally for
full equality. In March, the president signed an executive order
aimed at guaranteeing students can learn in an "environment free of
discrimination" based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The
order, however, didn't address the issue of religious rights and
exemptions.
According to REAP, there are about 600 four-year, degree-granting
nonprofit Christian colleges in the United States, about one-third
of which have policies against LGBTQ+ students in their student
code of conduct policies.
The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, of which Regent
is a member, contends the lawsuit is "frivolous" and a threat to
religious freedom. The organization asserts that if the suit
succeeds, low-income students who wish to attend Christian colleges
will lose access to federal aid.
In a May motion, CCCU said the Biden administration couldn't be
trusted to adequately defend the schools' beliefs. Its motion asked
to be part of the case.
According to a U.S. Treasury Department website that calculates
federal aid, Regent received $116 million in 2018, the last year
for which data is available.
Lord will soon enter her third and final year of law school, taking
all her classes online - a mutual agreement with the school, she
said. She and her girlfriend are now engaged.
She joined Regent with hopes of becoming a family law attorney and
excited at the prospect of building a relationship with Christ on
campus.
Her experiences at the school, however, have cast doubts on her
desire to practice law. And she said she's never felt further from
God.
Olivia George, olivia.george@virginiamedia.com [GN]
VISION SOLAR: Doane TCPA Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROBERT A. DOANE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VISION SOLAR LLC, Case No.
2181CV01504, was removed from the Middlesex County Superior Court
of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on August 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-11285 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited
telemarketing sales calls to the Plaintiff's and Class members'
cellular telephone numbers.
Vision Solar LLC is a company engaged in the manufacturing and
selling of solar energy installations, with its principal place of
business located at 501 East Black Horse Pike, Blackwood, New
Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew M. MacDonald, Esq.
Brett A. Berman, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
2000 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 444-7174
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Background Check Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
ESR News Blog reports that Walmart Inc. is facing a proposed
nationwide class action lawsuit that claims "the nation's largest
employer discriminates against Black and Latino job applicants
through a strict background check policy that fails to consider
rehabilitation and other mitigating circumstances," according to a
news report from Reuters.
The complaint Ramos v. Walmart Inc. (No. 2:21-cv-13827) filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 19,
2021, claimed that the Arkansas-based company's background check
policy violated state and federal law because it was not
"job-related and consistent with business necessity," Reuters
reported.
Plaintiff Jacqueline Ramos said she had a job offer with Walmart
rescinded because of a prior felony conviction and claimed that
Walmart's background check policies were in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin.
The complaint claimed that Walmart's policy of denying jobs to
ex-offenders who have prior criminal records, regardless of how
much time had passed or the steps taken to rehabilitate, had a
disparate impact on Black and Latino job applicants, who are far
more likely to have criminal convictions than white job
applicants.
Reuters reported that Ramos "is seeking to represent nationwide and
New Jersey-wide classes of Black and Latino people who were turned
down for jobs by Walmart because of their criminal records."
Amazon, Macy's, Uber, and Wells Fargo have also faced race bias
lawsuits involving their criminal background check policies.
Reuters also reported that a Walmart spokesman said the company
used an "individual circumstance" review process for Ramos and
"determined the job she applied for was necessarily related to her
felony conviction." He also said the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) dismissed a claim filed by Ramos.
In 2012, the EEOC, which enforces federal laws prohibiting
discrimination in the workplace including Title VII, issued
"Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction
Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964" to consolidate and update previous guidance
documents.
The EEOC guidance stated that an employer may violate Title VII if
the employer's "policy or practice has the effect of
disproportionately screening out a Title VII-protected group and
the employer fails to demonstrate that the policy or practice is
job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity." [GN]
WALMART INC: Lebby Seeks Warehouse Employees' Unpaid Wages, OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LEBBY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
WALMART INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-01365-RDM (M.D. Pa., Aug. 5, 2021)
seeks for unpaid wages (including overtime wages); prejudgment
interest; litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees; and any
other and further relief this Court deems just and proper under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff resides in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania (Monroe County).
The Defendant is a nationwide retailer. In addition to its many
retail stores, the Defendant operates distribution facilities and
fulfillment centers located in Pennsylvania (collectively "the PA
warehouses") from which it receives and ships products that
ultimately are sold to Defendant's retail and on-line customers.
Most employees at the PA warehouses are paid an hourly wage. The
Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a PA warehouse employee
since February 2018. He currently is on a leave of absence due to a
July 2020 workplace injury. Plaintiff primarily worked at the PA
warehouse located in Tobyhanna, PA (the Tobyhanna warehouse).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
Michelle L. Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Todd O' Malley, Esq.
Mary Anne Lucas, Esq.
O'MALLEY & LANGAN, PC
201 Franklin Avenue
Scranton, PA 18503
Telephone: (570) 344-2667
- and -
Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (267) 256-9973
WOLF & BADGER: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wolf & Badger US Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Wolf &
Badger US Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06688 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wolf & Badger -- https://www.wolfandbadger.com/global/ -- is a
multi-channel retail platform for the finest independent, ethical
and unique brands from around the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
WYNN RESORTS: Judge Revives Elements of Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ritter, writing for ABC News, reports that a federal judge in
Nevada has revived elements of a securities fraud lawsuit seeking
class-action status for allegations that executives at Wynn Resorts
Ltd. knew about, but disregarded, reports of sexual harassment and
misconduct against company founder Steve Wynn.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon ruled the case can go forward
alleging that Steve Wynn, board members and top executives at his
Las Vegas-based company violated Securities and Exchange Commission
laws and rules through "material misrepresentations and
omissions."
Wynn has denied allegations that became public in January 2018 with
a Wall Street Journal report about dozens of casino employees
describing, as the judge noted, "behavior that cumulatively would
amount to a decades-long pattern of sexual misconduct."
The former casino mogul, now 79, resigned as company chief
executive and board chairman shortly after the Journal article
appeared and has multiple ongoing court fights.
His attorneys in the current case, Colby Williams in Las Vegas and
Michelle Johnson and Colleen Smith in California, declined to
comment about Gordon's order.
A different federal judge dismissed the complaint in May 2020, but
allowed plaintiffs led by John Ferris and Joann Ferris to amend and
refile the case.
It seeks unspecified damages for unnamed holders of Wynn stock that
plunged in value more than 17% after misconduct allegations became
public.
"The court's decision underscores the fact that alleged sexual
misconduct and harassment by corporate executives are material
issues for investors, especially when management turns a blind eye
to reports of wrongdoing," said Murielle Steven Walsh, attorney for
the plaintiffs. "This type of misconduct poses a threat to a
company's financial success."
Gordon, in his 42-page order issued July 28, said the revived case
should focus on two statements made by the company:
One, a press release responding to allegations raised in a legal
filing by Wynn's ex-wife, Elaine Wynn, "regarding serious
misconduct and misuse of company resources by (Steve) Wynn."
Second, statements by the company and Steve Wynn responding to the
Journal article.
"At this stage," the judge said, plaintiffs "sufficiently alleged"
that Steve Wynn, current company president and CEO Matt Maddox, and
two other executives, Kimmarie Sinatra, former executive vice
president general counsel and secretary, and Stephen Cootey, former
chief financial and accounting officer and treasurer, "were aware
of information contradicting their statements that denied
misconduct allegations."
"The inference that these defendants were aware of Wynn's alleged
misconduct at the time of their statements is cogent and
compelling," Gordon wrote.
Wynn Resorts spokesman Michael Weaver said in a statement that the
company looks forward to the case "moving beyond the allegation
stage."
Wynn Resorts owns and operates casinos in Las Vegas, Massachusetts
and the Chinese gambling enclave of Macau.
Its statement said similar allegations were investigated in 2018
and 2019 by Massachusetts and Nevada gambling regulators and both
"affirmed the company's and its current executives' licensure and
good standing."
In February 2019, the Nevada Gaming Commission ended a year-long
probe and fined the company a record $20 million for failing to
investigate claims of sexual misconduct against Wynn before he
resigned.
Then-Commissioner Philip Pro, a former federal judge, said
investigators found "a failure of a corporate culture to
effectively govern itself as it should."
In April 2019, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission fined Wynn
Resorts $35 million for executives' failure to disclose years of
allegations of sexual misconduct against Steve Wynn. It also fined
Maddox $500,000 for a "clear failure" to investigate at least one
misconduct complaint.
Massachusetts regulators said they were "troubled by the systemic
failures and pervasive culture of non-disclosure" at Wynn Resorts.
The company agreed in November 2019 to accept $20 million in
damages from Steve Wynn and $21 million more from insurance
carriers on behalf of current and former employees of Wynn Resorts
to settle shareholder lawsuits accusing company directors of
failing to disclose misconduct allegations.
The agreements made no admission of wrongdoing.
In another ongoing legal case, the Nevada Supreme Court is
considering Steve Wynn's appeal of a decision last December by the
Nevada Gaming Commission to consider fining him up to $500,000 and
declare him unsuitable to renew his gambling ties to the state.
Steve Wynn also has a pending defamation lawsuit against The
Associated Press and an AP reporter based on a story about accounts
to Las Vegas police from two women who alleged sexual misconduct by
Wynn.
Wynn owned, built and operated notable Las Vegas properties
including the Golden Nugget, The Mirage, Treasure Island and
Bellagio before building the Wynn and Encore resorts on the Las
Vegas Strip. [GN]
YAMAZAKI USA: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yamazaki USA Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Yamazaki
USA Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04462 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Yamazaki -- https://theyamazakihome.com/ -- offers a fresh take on
common household items, with a focus on simplicity, space saving,
and design.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Bilzin Sumberg Attorney Discusses Privacy Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Melchiondo, Esq., of Bilzin Sumberg, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that after months of litigation, Zoom Video
Communications has agreed to pay $85 million to settle a proposed
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The lawsuit alleges that Zoom violated users' privacy rights by
sharing information with Facebook, Google and LinkedIn, and by
letting intruders "Zoombomb" meetings.
In March, Judge Koh dismissed several claims from the proposed
class against Zoom, including invasion of privacy, negligence, and
violation of California's consumer and anti-hacking laws. In
dismissing those claims, Judge Koh said that plaintiffs failed to
prove that Zoom shared or sold their data without their permission.
Judge Koh also ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency
Act immunizes Zoom from liability for instances of Zoombombing. In
her opinion, Judge Koh wrote, "Appalling as this content is, Zoom's
failure to edit or block user-generated content is the very
activity Congress sought to immunize" under Section 230.
Judge Koh's ruling in March left viable only the plaintiffs'
contract-based claims against Zoom. The proposed class alleged that
Zoom breached its promises to customers to adequately protect
customers' private information and secure videoconferences with
end-to-end encryption. Judge Koh's initial rulings in the case had
found the allegations sufficient that Zoom had entered into
"implied contracts" with its customers, and, under those, Zoom had
agreed to take steps to safeguard their customers' information.
The parties filed a preliminary settlement for Judge Koh's review.
If approved, the settlement will apply to any Zoom user who used
Zoom from March 30, 2016 to the date of the settlement. The
settlement calls for a 15% refund, or $25, whichever is higher, for
Zoom users with paid accounts. For users who used the free version
of Zoom, Zoom will pay up to $15.
Zoom also agreed to bolster its security measures, including
alerting users when meeting hosts or other participants use
third-party apps during meetings, and providing Zoom's own
employees with specialized training on privacy and data handling.
[GN]
ZOOM VIDEO: October 21 Class Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Wagenseil, writing for Tom's Guide, reports that if you've
used Zoom at all in the past five years, or even just signed up
with the video-conferencing service, then you may have some money
coming to you.
On Saturday (July 31), Zoom reached an $85 million agreement with
two California law firms that had sued the company in federal court
claiming that Zoom misled users about its encryption and security,
had inadequate security that led to "Zoom bombings" and shared user
data with Facebook, with Google and with LinkedIn without user
consent or even user notification.
Any consumer who paid for a Zoom subscription between March 30,
2016 through July 30, 2021 will be entitled to a reimbursement of
15% of their subscription costs, or $25, whichever is greater. The
plaintiffs estimate the average reimbursement may about $35, but
that eventually depends on how many people file claims.
Even consumers who had free Zoom accounts are entitled to claim $15
from the settlement fund. The presiding judge has yet to approve
the settlement, but a hearing is set for Oct. 21. This lawsuit does
not affect or concern enterprise or government clients of Zoom, who
are not part of the plaintiff class.
Update: Zoom reached out to us after publication of this story and
provided this statement, in full.
"The privacy and security of our users are top priorities for Zoom,
and we take seriously the trust our users place in us. We are proud
of the advancements we have made to our platform, and look forward
to continuing to innovate with privacy and security at the
forefront. "
How you can file a settlement claim against Zoom
Under the terms of the agreement, Zoom will provide the settlement
administrators a list of eligible registered users, and the
administrators will notify those users via email or regular post of
their eligibility to file a claim.
Those so notified "need only provide their names, mailing address,
email and claim number," according to the settlement motion.
If you don't get a notification but feel you're entitled to file a
claim, then you need to provide "either an email associated with a
Zoom account, a Zoom account number, or failing that, documentation
and an attestation demonstrating that [you] are a Class Member."
Class members include any Zoom personal account holder who
"registered, used, opened, or downloaded the Zoom Meetings
Application" from March 30, 2016 until July 31, 2021.
A settlement website is to be set up at
http://www.zoommeetingsclassaction.com/.(It's not live yet, but
the domain has been registered.) There will also be a settlement
mailing address, email address and phone number that claim filers
can contact.
Ambulance chasing, but with merit
The class-action suit is a merging of 14 different lawsuits filed
against Zoom in March and April of 2020, soon after the COVID-19
pandemic lockdown began in Europe and North America and use of Zoom
by private clients skyrocketed. The 14 lawsuits were consolidated
into one by a judge in May 2020.
A flurry of lawsuits being filed against a suddenly hot company
seems opportunistic, and it is, but the plaintiffs' claims do have
merit.
Zoom did in fact mislead customers about the nature and security of
what it claimed was "end-to-end encryption" but really wasn't,
leading Zoom to settle a claim with the Federal Trade Commission in
November 2020.
Zoom did in fact incorporate Facebook code into its iOS app that
sent Facebook information about each user's iPhone model, location,
carrier and app usage, whether or not the user had a Facebook
account. Zoom users were not notified of this.
Zoom did in fact give users who paid for a special LinkedIn service
a snapshot of the LinkedIn pages of other Zoom users, without
telling those users that their LinkedIn pages were being shared
over Zoom. The New York Times found that even if you signed into
Zoom meetings under fake names, your real LinkedIn page would pop
up.
Zoom also sent mobile-app usage data to Google's Firebase analytics
service, which is less outrageous but is nonetheless the basis of
separate lawsuits against Google.
The plaintiffs originally sought to hold Zoom liable for the
actions of Zoom "bombers" who invaded Zoom meetings with content
that was often shocking or rude.
The court rejected those claims, ruling that Zoom was not
responsible for the actions of third-party users per Section 230 of
the federal law code. But the court retained the plaintiffs'
complaint that Zoom did not provide a "secure videoconferencing
service."
Actions Zoom has to take
From now on, Zoom has to notify users during meetings about which
other meeting participants can see who's on the call, which
participants can save meeting data and which participants are using
third-party apps that can interact with the Zoom software. (Some of
these features are already in place.)
Zoom also agrees to:
-- Notify users when their personal is data being shared with
third parties such as Facebook, Google or LinkedIn
-- Create staff positions dedicated to reporting incidents of
Zoom bombing to law enforcement
-- Create waiting rooms for attendees (already implemented)
-- Create a "suspend meeting activities" button
-- Enable "blocking of users from specific countries for a
minimum of three years"
-- Provide a centralized hub of privacy and security information
for parents of kids who use Zoom for school
The lawyers for the plaintiffs are asking the judge to set aside
25% of the settlement, or $21.25 million, to pay their legal fees.
That sounds like a lot, but it's less than the 33% that plaintiff's
attorneys normally get.
If any of the $85 million is left over after all claims have been
settled, the extra money will go to the Electronic Frontier
Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, two
non-profit digital-rights groups. [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), on Aug. 4 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California captioned Shankar v.
Zymergen Inc., et al., (Case No. 21-cv-06028) on behalf of persons
and entities that 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"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
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 60 days from this notice ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
ZYMERGEN INC: Kehoe Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating whether Zymergen Inc.
("Zymergen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ZY) violated federal
securities laws.
Zymergen investors who have suffered financial losses greater than
$50,000 are encouraged to contact Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. to learn
more about the securities investigation or potential legal claims.
On August 3, 2021, CNBC.com reported that Zymergen ". . . has yet
to start generating product sales and said it now expects revenue
from its products to be 'immaterial' through 2022." Stock of the
Company, which went public in April 2021, dropped almost 70% on
Aug. 3, thereby injuring investors.
ZYMERGEN SHAREHOLDERS WITH FINANCIAL LOSSES GREATER THAN $50,000
WHO WISH TO DISCUSS KEHOE LAW FIRM'S CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR
HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR POTENTIAL LEGAL RIGHTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO
CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804,
MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
+12157926676
info@kehoelawfirm.com [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 119 Pending Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., as of June 30, 2021, reportedly
has 119 asbestos cases pending, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Majority of these cases are pending in
Illinois state courts. The Company has been, and continues to be,
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death
and seeking various monetary damages due to exposure to asbestos in
building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. Given
the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to
product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or
unasserted claims. The aggregate settlement costs and legal and
administrative fees associated with the Company's asbestos
litigation has been immaterial for the last three years. As of June
30, 2021, the Company has accrued an immaterial amount related to
pending claims."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3xBMPJy
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Intl. Defends 3,617 PI Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp., as of June 30, 2021, is a defendant of
3,617 claims brought in various courts in the United States by
plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to
1976 and used in certain paper mills, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We anticipate that additional claims will be
filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but
are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims.
Due to the fact that information sufficient to meaningfully
estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is
typically not available until late in the discovery process, we do
not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range
of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims and
therefore are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss in excess of amounts already accrued for pending or future
claims.
"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of June 30, 2021, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,957 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.4 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims.
The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc. ("Brandon"),
is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which
Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having manufactured
any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was defending
against 7,709 claims as of June 30, 2021, only twelve claims have
been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and a negligible
amount of settlement costs have been incurred since 2001. Brandon
was acquired by the Company in 1999, and has its own insurance
policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004, Brandon's
insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification and defense
costs, subject to policy limits and a standard reservation of
rights.
"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount
Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount
Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number
of actions.
"We currently do not anticipate, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned
proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.
Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims,
based on the foregoing factors, the trends in claims filed against
us, and available insurance, we also do not currently anticipate
that potential future claims will have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3saX06t
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Incurs $1.6MM Asbestos Costs in Q2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation has asbestos-related costs, net of taxes of $1.6
million and $2.5 million during the three and six months ended July
2, 2021, respectively, and $1.4 million and $2.8 million during the
three and six months ended July 3, 2020, respectively, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Colfax Corp states, "The Company retained certain asbestos-related
contingencies and insurance coverages from divested businesses for
which it did not retain an interest in the ongoing operations
subject to the contingencies. The Company has classified
asbestos-related selling, general and administrative activity in
its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations as part of Loss
from discontinued operations, net of taxes.
The Company also recorded Loss from discontinued operations, net of
taxes of $0.1 million and $6.6 million during the three and six
months ended July 2, 2021, respectively, and $3.5 million and $5.5
million during the three and six months ended July 3, 2020,
respectively, related to its divested air and gas handling
business, including a settlement executed in the first quarter of
2021, as well as certain professional, legal, and consulting fees
in 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2XkbJkr
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 29,788 Pending Claims at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of June 30, 2021, is a defendant in cases filed in
numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Of the 29,788 pending claims as of June 30,
2021, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of which
approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were filed over
15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court orders.
"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals.
"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) by us for the six months ended June 30,
2021 and 2020 totaled $21.3 million and $23.9 million,
respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and
defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the
tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort
system activity by several months or more, and may show some
fluctuation from period to period. Cash payments of settlement
amounts are not made until all releases and other required
documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both
settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due
to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer
to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain
reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement
and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the six
months ended June 30, 2021 and, 2020 totaled $20.2 million and
$19.2 million, respectively. Detailed below are the comparable
amounts for the periods indicated.
"The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and
cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period
amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported.
"Cumulatively through June 30, 2021, we have resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 142,000 claims. The related
settlement costs incurred by us and our insurance carriers is
approximately $692 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $4,900. The average settlement cost
per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019
and 2018 was $13,900, $15,800, and $11,300, respectively. Because
claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost
per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large
group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding
settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes
from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in our periodic review of our estimated asbestos liability."
A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3yId4zo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Still Defends A&E Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive
asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Asbestos claims relate primarily to bodily
injuries asserted by people who came in contact with asbestos or
products containing asbestos. Environmental claims relate primarily
to pollution and related clean-up costs.
"The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In
addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and
environmental exposures under general liability policies and
pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported
in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.
"Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of
insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company
wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an
insured’s liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and
umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses
that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company
acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by
other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance
coverages.
"Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and particularly
asbestos claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve
estimates for these exposures is significantly greater than for
other more traditional exposures.
In the case of the reserves for asbestos exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include inadequate
loss development patterns, plaintiffs' expanding theories of
liability, the risks inherent in major litigation, and inconsistent
emerging legal doctrines. Furthermore, over time, insurers,
including the Company, have experienced significant changes in the
rate at which asbestos claims are brought, the claims experience of
particular insureds, and the value of claims, making predictions of
future exposure from past experience uncertain. Plaintiffs and
insureds also have sought to use bankruptcy proceedings, including
"pre-packaged" bankruptcies, to accelerate and increase loss
payments by insurers. In addition, some policyholders have asserted
new classes of claims for coverages to which an aggregate limit of
liability may not apply. Further uncertainties include insolvencies
of other carriers and unanticipated developments pertaining to the
Company's ability to recover reinsurance for A&E claims. Management
believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near
future.
"In the case of the reserves for environmental exposures, factors
contributing to the high degree of uncertainty include expanding
theories of liability and damages, the risks inherent in major
litigation, inconsistent decisions concerning the existence and
scope of coverage for environmental claims, and uncertainty as to
the monetary amount being sought by the claimant from the insured.
"The reporting pattern for assumed reinsurance claims, including
those related to A&E claims, is much longer than for direct claims.
In many instances, it takes months or years to determine that the
policyholder's own obligations have been met and how the
reinsurance in question may apply to such claims. The delay in
reporting reinsurance claims and exposures adds to the uncertainty
of estimating the related reserves.
"It is also not possible to predict changes in the legal and
legislative environment and their effect on the future development
of A&E claims.
"The Company believes the actuarial tools and other techniques it
employs to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more
traditional kinds of insurance exposure are less precise in
estimating reserves for A&E exposures. For this reason, the Company
principally relies on exposure-based analysis to estimate the
ultimate costs of these claims, both gross and net of reinsurance,
and regularly evaluates new account information in assessing its
potential A&E exposures. The Company supplements this
exposure-based analysis with evaluations of the Company's
historical direct net loss and expense paid and reported
experience, and net loss and expense paid and reported experience
by calendar and/or report year, to assess any emerging trends,
fluctuations or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid and
reported activity.
"While the Company believes that its current A&E reserves are
appropriate, significant uncertainties limit the ability of
insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary
for unpaid losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities,
thus, could exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such
additional liability, while not estimable now, could be material to
The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity.
"For its Run-off A&E, as of June 30, 2021, the Company reported
$646 of net asbestos reserves and $74 of net environmental
reserves. In addition, the Company has recorded a $210 deferred
gain within other liabilities for losses economically ceded to NICO
but for which the benefit is not recognized in earnings until later
periods. While the Company believes that its current Run-off A&E
reserves are appropriate, significant uncertainties limit our
ability to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
losses and related expenses. The ultimate liabilities, thus, could
exceed the currently recorded reserves, and any such additional
liability, while not reasonably estimable now, could be material to
The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity.
"The Company's A&E ADC reinsurance agreement with NICO reinsures
substantially all A&E reserve development for 2016 and prior
accident years, including Run-off A&E and A&E reserves included in
Commercial Lines and Personal Lines. The A&E ADC has a coverage
limit of $1.5 billion above the Company's existing net A&E reserves
as of December 31, 2016 of approximately $1.7 billion. As of June
30, 2021, the Company has incurred $860 in cumulative adverse
development on A&E reserves that have been ceded under the A&E ADC
treaty with NICO, leaving $640 of coverage available for future
adverse net reserve development, if any. Cumulative adverse
development of A&E claims for accident years 2016 and prior could
ultimately exceed the $1.5 billion treaty limit in which case any
adverse development in excess of the treaty limit would be absorbed
as a charge to earnings by the Company."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3jLEw8X
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp., Subsidiaries Defends PI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether
and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting
in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.
"In evaluating whether to accrue for losses associated with legal
or other contingencies, the Company takes into consideration
factors such as the facts and circumstances asserted, historical
experience, the likelihood of prevailing and the severity of any
potential loss. During the three months ended June 30, 2021, the
Company recorded a contingent reserve of $3.9 million associated
with a Corporate transaction indemnity for a prior divestiture."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3iyZcSd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaiser Aluminum Has Potential CARO Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation has identified potential conditional
asset retirement obligations ("CAROs") related to the future
removal and disposal of asbestos that is contained within the
Warrick rolling mill facility, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We believe that the asbestos is appropriately
contained in accordance with current environmental regulations. If
the facility were demolished or subject to renovation activities
that disturb the asbestos, certain environmental regulations are in
place which specify the manner in which the asbestos must be
handled and disposed. We are required to record the fair value of
CAROs if they can be reasonably estimated. As of June 30, 2021, we
are in the process of evaluating and determining the fair value of
a potential CARO, if any, acquired as part of the Warrick
acquisition. No liability has been recorded on our accompanying
Consolidated Balance Sheets as the liability is currently
indeterminable. We may conclude at a future date that a CARO exists
and we could be required to record a liability for the related
obligations in amounts that are material to our consolidated
financial statements. While we do not currently expect that the
CARO liability will be material to our consolidated financial
statements, there can be no assurance as to the existence of a CARO
obligation and corresponding liabilities that we may be required to
record in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/2VLkGCi
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Intl. Faces Personal Injury Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. is involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of its businesses wherein some
of these claims and lawsuits are allege personal injury or health
problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated
into certain of its products, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "We have never manufactured asbestos and have
not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our products
for several decades. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other
forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The
remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that
are not material, individually or in the aggregate. Our defense
costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by
insurance. However, our insurance coverage for settlements and
judgments for asbestos-related claims varies depending on several
factors and are subject to policy limits. We may have greater
financial exposure for future settlements and judgments."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/37BElY6
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Olin Corp., Subsidiaries Defends Exposure Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation and its subsidiaries, are defendants in various
other legal actions (including proceedings based on alleged
exposures to asbestos) incidental to its past and current business
activities, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As of June 30, 2021, December 31, 2020 and
June 30, 2020, our condensed balance sheets included accrued
liabilities for these other legal actions of $12.9 million, $13.5
million and $12.4 million, respectively. These liabilities do not
include costs associated with legal representation. Based on our
analysis, and considering the inherent uncertainties associated
with litigation, we do not believe that it is reasonably possible
that these other legal actions will materially adversely affect our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations.
"During the ordinary course of our business, contingencies arise
resulting from an existing condition, situation or set of
circumstances involving an uncertainty as to the realization of a
possible gain contingency. In certain instances such as
environmental projects, we are responsible for managing the cleanup
and remediation of an environmental site. There exists the
possibility of recovering a portion of these costs from other
parties."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/37BUooO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Estimates $23MM Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has reported an estimated range of total
liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future
asbestos claims through 2059 at approximately $23 million to $45
million as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "Because no amount within the range of
estimates is more likely to occur than any other, we have recorded
the minimum amount of $23 million, which is principally recorded in
Other long-term liabilities on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020. Amounts are on a
pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes the Company's legal
fees to defend the asbestos claims (which will continue to be
expensed as they are incurred). In addition, the Company has an
insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos-related
recoveries of approximately $5 million, which is principally
included in Other assets on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020.
"As previously disclosed, we have been named as defendants in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos. While we have never manufactured any asbestos-containing
component parts, and no longer incorporate asbestos in any current
products, certain of our historical products have contained
components manufactured by third parties incorporating asbestos. A
substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been
dismissed without payment or were covered in full or in part by
insurance or other forms of indemnity. Additional cases were
litigated and settled without any insurance reimbursement. The
amounts involved in asbestos related claims were not material
individually or in the aggregate as of and for the periods ended
June 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3lRvb1Z
WASHINGTON PRIME: Announces 2nd Quarter 2021 Results
----------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2021, Washington Prime Group Inc. (NYSE: WPG) reported
financial and operating results for the second quarter ended June
30, 2021. During the quarter, the Company commenced a voluntary
Chapter 11 financial restructuring with a restructuring support
agreement (the "RSA") supported by over 70% of its holders of
secured and unsecured corporate debt. Due to the pending Chapter 11
cases, the Company is not providing 2021 guidance and will not host
an earnings conference call this quarter.
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30 June 30
2020 2021 2020 2021
Net loss
per diluted share $(4.26) $(3.88) $(6.77) $(3.73)
FFO
per diluted share $(1.74) $(0.38) $(1.89) $1.61
FFO
per diluted share,
as adjusted $0.75 $0.07 $1.65 $2.06
A description of each non-GAAP financial measure and the related
reconciliations to the comparable GAAP financial measure are
provided in this press release.
Second Quarter Financial Results
Net loss attributable to common shareholders for the second quarter
of 2021 was $105.5 million, or $(4.26) per diluted share, compared
to net loss of $82.1 million, or $(3.88) per diluted share, a year
ago. The year-over-year (YOY) difference relates primarily to the
impacts of the Company’s Chapter 11 financial restructuring
process, which included prepetition charges of $38.1 million and
$24.4 million in reorganization items during the second quarter of
2021. There were no such charges during the same quarter a year
ago. Interest expense increased $15.1 million during the second
quarter of 2021 compared to a year ago, primarily resulting from
higher interest expense on the Company's corporate debt as a result
of default.
Partially offsetting these factors was growth of $30.1 million in
comparable NOI from the Company's Tier One and Open Air properties
as well as lower impairment charges of $35.0 million.
Funds from Operations (FFO) for the second quarter of 2021 was
$(43.7) million, or $(1.74) per diluted share, which compares to
$(9.4) million, or $(0.38) per diluted share, during the same
quarter a year ago. The YOY decrease in FFO is primarily attributed
to the aforementioned prepetition charges and reorganization items
related to the Company's Chapter 11 financial restructuring
process, which did not occur during the second quarter of 2020,
partially offset by lower impairment charges on non-depreciable
real estate and higher net operating income, compared to the same
quarter a year ago. When adjusting for the impact of the
prepetition charges and reorganization items in the second quarter
of 2021 and the $11.2 million impairment on a note receivable in
the second quarter of 2020, FFO, as adjusted, for the second
quarter of 2021 was $18.8 million, or $0.75 per diluted share,
which compares to $1.8 million, or $0.07 per diluted share, during
the same quarter a year ago.
Operational Highlights
Ending occupancy for the core properties was 92.1% as of June 30,
2021, compared to 92.4% a year ago. Inline store sales at the
Company's Tier One properties increased 2.1% to $433 per square
foot for the twelve months ended June 30, 2021, compared to $424
per square foot for the same period in 2019. Operating metrics by
asset group can be found in the second quarter 2021 Supplemental
Information report available on the Company's website.
Financial Restructuring and Chapter 11 Process
On June 13, 2021, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
(collectively, the "Company Parties"), filed voluntary petitions
for relief (the "Chapter 11 Cases") under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas (the "Bankruptcy Court"). The
Company entered Chapter 11 after executing a RSA with creditors
that hold approximately 73% of the principal amount outstanding of
the Company's secured corporate debt and 67% of the principal
amount outstanding of the Company's unsecured notes. The Company
Parties commenced the Chapter 11 Cases to implement a comprehensive
financial restructuring of the Company’s corporate debt that will
allow the Company to substantially deleverage its balance sheet.
In connection with the Chapter 11 Cases, the Company obtained
debtor-in-possession ("DIP") financing in the aggregate principal
amount of $100.0 million under a non-amortizing multiple draw
super-priority secured term loan facility (the "DIP Facility"). The
proceeds of the DIP Facility may be used for, among other things,
general corporate purposes, including working capital,
administrative costs, redevelopment costs, tenant obligations,
expenses and fees of the transactions contemplated by the Chapter
11 Cases, court approved adequate protection obligations and other
such purposes consistent with the documents governing the DIP
Facility. As of June 30, 2021, $50.0 million was outstanding under
the DIP Facility. In addition to the remaining $50 million of
capacity under the DIP Facility, the Company Parties had cash on
hand of $60.7 million at June 30, 2021.
Resources for the Company's stakeholders, and other information on
the Company's financial restructuring, can be accessed by visiting
the restructuring website at
http://cases.primeclerk.com/washingtonprime.Court filings and
other documents related to the Chapter 11 process are available at
http://cases.primeclerk.com/washingtonprime,by calling the
Company’s claims agent, Prime Clerk, at (877) 329-1913 (toll
free) or (347) 919-5772 (international) or by emailing
washingtonprimeinfo@primeclerk.com.
About Washington Prime Group
Washington Prime Group Inc. (NYSE: WPG) --
http://www.washingtonprime.com/-- is a retail REIT and a
recognized leader in the ownership, management, acquisition and
development of retail properties. It combines a national real
estate portfolio with its expertise across the entire shopping
center sector to increase cash flow through rigorous management of
assets and provide new opportunities to retailers looking for
growth throughout the U.S.
Washington Prime Group and its affiliates sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D. Texas Lead Case No. 21-31948) on June 13,
2021. At the time of the filing, Washington Prime Group's property
portfolio consists of material interests in 102 shopping centers in
the United States totaling approximately 52 million square feet of
gross leasable area. The company operates 97 of the 102
properties.
As of March 31, 2021, Washington Prime Group had total assets of
$4.029 billion against total liabilities of $3.471 billion.
The Debtors tapped Kirkland & Ellis, LLP and Kirkland & Ellis
International, LLP as lead bankruptcy counsel; Jackson Walker, LLP
as co-counsel; Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC as restructuring
advisor; Guggenheim Securities, LLC as investment banker; Deloitte
Tax, LLP as tax services provider; and Ernst & Young, LLP as
auditor. Prime Clerk LLC is the claims agent, maintaining the page
http://cases.primeclerk.com/washingtonprime
SVPGlobal, the Debtors' lender, tapped Davis Polk & Wardwell, LLP
and Evercore Group, LLC as its legal counsel and investment banker,
respectively.
The U.S. Trustee for Region 6 appointed an official committee of
unsecured creditors in the Debtors' cases on June 25, 2021.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP serves as the creditors committee's legal
counsel.
On July 15, 2021, the U.S. Trustee appointed an official committee
of equity security holders. The equity committee is represented by
Porter Hedges, LLP and Brown Rudnick, LLP.
*********
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 ***