/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210910.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 10, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 176
Headlines
AARON'S LLC: Deering Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
AKKAM INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in California
ALLIED ACCOUNT: Landau Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
APPLE INC: Developer Files Class Action Over App Store Policies
APPLE INC: Makes Changes to App Store Rules Following Lawsuits
ARDELYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 4 Deadline
ARDELYX INC: Tenapanor Related Putative Class Suit Underway
ART ANGELS: Morales Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
BLINK CHARGING: Bid to Dismiss Bush Suit Pending
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Ford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. of Injunctive Relief Class Sought
CHATHAM, ON: Faces Class Action Over Wheatley Explosion
CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Ramsey Purported Class Suit
COLORADO: Sued for Allegedly Violating Medicaid Act Mandate
DIDI GLOBAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
DOLLAR TREE: Magpali Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ECOARK HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Action
EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Lacon Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
ERIE INDEMNITY: Stephenson Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
EXTRA SPACE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Murray Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FEDEX GROUND: Tecu Suit Removed to C.D. California
FERDOUS KHANDAKER: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action From Patients
FIRST SAVINGS: Policy and Practice Related Class Suit Underway
FMC CORP: Growers Urged to Join Overwatch Herbicide Class Action
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 19 Deadline
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Netflix Playstore Fee Terms
GREENLAND TECH: Discloses Payment of $65K Atty's Fees in Wheby Suit
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Bailey FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
HAWAI'I: Panel to Review Prison Covid-19 Response Under Settlement
HAWAI'I: Settles Inmates' Class Action v. Public Safety Department
HPS MECHANICAL: Jaimez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HUM NUTRITION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Arbitration in Nguyen Suit Set for October 25
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment in Favor of Timm Upheld
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in McNair-Batres Suit Set for Jan. 18 2022
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Sears Class Action
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Onion Rings Snacks
JUNIPER NETWORK: 401(k) Plan Litigation May Spur More Lawsuits
KILGORE ISD: Released Statements About Homestead Tax Lawsuit
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Butter Crackers
LANNETT COMPANY: Utesch Suit Transferred to C.D. California
LEMONADE INC: Citchens Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
LEON & GEORGE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Ongoing
LIVE VENTURES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 12 Deadline
LOANPAL LLC: Brunson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LORAL SPACE: Pluviose and Butchko Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Petro Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Duda Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gutnick Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MINNESOTA: Trooper Testifies in George Floyd Protest Class Action
MISSOURI: AG to Sue K-12 Public Schools Over Mask Mandate
MODLIN SLINSKY: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
NAGATANIEN RS FOODS: Aparicio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONAL VISION: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. FirstSight Vision
NEW YORK CITY: Malcolm Suit Seeks to Certify Class
NVR INC: Jenkins Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Virginia
PARKING REIT: Magowski Settlement Granted Final Approval
PARKING REIT: SIPDA Initiated Putative Class Suit Dismissed
PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Underway
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits
PFIZER INC: Court Dismisses EpiPen Direct Purchaser Suit
PFIZER INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaint by Sept. 21
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
RELIANCE FIRST: Gillam Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
RENOVACARE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 14 Deadline
ROOT INC: Ohio Purported Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ROOT INC: Shareholders Purported Class Suit Underway
RUSH PERSONNEL: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAN JUAN BASIN: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
SODEXO INC: Meza Suit Removed to C.D. California
SPARTAN CONCRETE: Loctar Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 1 Deadline
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Lawsuit Over Courthouse Health Concerns
STEREOTAXIS INC: Delaware Court Approves Barre Bid to Dismiss
STUDENT LOAN: McKinley Files Suit in D. Maryland
SUPER MICRO: Hessefort Suit Seeks to Certify Class
TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Dahhan Suit Ongoing
TENNESSEE: Judge Blocks Governor's Mask Mandate Opt-Out Order
UNION BANK: Friedly Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class Action
VIEW INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 18 Deadline
WHITE PINES: Conditional Certification of Dancer Collective Sought
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. Comerica
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Clean Energy Incurs $1MM Abatement Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Declines to Stop J&J from Offloading Talc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Land Newco Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
*********
AARON'S LLC: Deering Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aaron's, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Alexus Deering, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Aaron's, LLC, a Gerogia limited
liability company, The Aaron's Company, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0008005 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Aug. 26, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Aaron's -- https://www.aarons.com/ -- offers the best furniture,
electronics, appliances, computers and more at an affordable
price.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. De Sario, Esq.
NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 553-3600
Fax: (310) 553-3603
Email: jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Sept. 27 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against AdaptHealth Corp.
("AdaptHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AHCO) and reminds
investors of the September 27, 2021 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in AdaptHealth
stock or options between November 11, 2019 and July 16, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/AHCO.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
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.
Specifically, on July 19, 2021, before the market opened,
Jehoshaphat Research ("Jehoshaphat") published a report alleging
that AdaptHealth is a "roll-up" company, or a company that is built
primarily through the acquisition of smaller companies with common
services or products, that obscures its organic growth by
"[r]etroactively changing past organic growth numbers to be higher,
with no disclosure about the change." Specifically, the report
stated that "[w]hile management claims (and consensus estimates
reflect) an organic growth trajectory of 8-10%, AHCO is in fact
experiencing double-digit organic decline. It is also, in our
opinion, taking steps to obscure that decline which are expressly
forbidden by the SEC." Indeed, the report suggested that
AdaptHealth's manipulation of its organic growth trajectory was "a
blatant violation of non-GAAP disclosure rules, for which companies
get into huge trouble."
On this news, AdaptHealth's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
5.93%, to close at $23.96 per share on July 19, 2021.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding AdaptHealth's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
AKKAM INC: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law attorneys, at Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action lawsuit
against Akkam, Inc., alleging the company violated the California
Labor Code. The lawsuit against Akkam, Inc. is currently pending in
the Alameda County Superior Court, Case No. RG21107660. To read a
copy of the Complaint, please click here.
According to the lawsuit filed, Akkam, Inc. allegedly (a) failed to
pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages, (c) failed to
provide legally required meal and rest periods, (d) failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, (e) failed to reimburse
employees for required expenses, (f) failed to provide personnel
files, and (g) failed to provide wages when due, all in violation
of the applicable Labor Code sections listed in Labor Code Sections
Sections 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1,
1198.5, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s), and thereby gives
rise to civil penalties as a result of such alleged conduct.
Akkam, Inc. allegedly failed to respond to and provide Plaintiff
with their employment file. Section 1198.5 states that employees
have the right to inspect personnel records maintained by the
employer "related to the employee's performance or to any grievance
concerning the employee." Employers must allow inspection or
copying within 30 days of the request.
For more information about the class action lawsuit against Akkam,
Inc., call (800) 568-8020 to speak to an experienced California
employment attorney today.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is a labor law firm with
law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los
Angeles County, Sacramento County, Santa Clara County, Orange
County and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice
of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations
involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment,
wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct.
[GN]
ALLIED ACCOUNT: Landau Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account
Services Inc. The case is styled as Moshe Benzion Landau,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Allied Account Services Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-15960-KM-ESK
(D.N.J., Aug. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Allied Account Services Inc. --
https://alliedaccountservicesinc.com/facsweb/weblogind.htm -- is a
debt collection agency located in Bellmore, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
APPLE INC: Developer Files Class Action Over App Store Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Lee, writing for ubergizmo, reports that resentment against
Apple's App Store policies is not new, although for the most part,
most developers don't do much about their grievances other than to
just knuckle down and play within Apple's guidelines. However, in
recent times, we're starting to see more developers speak up and
take action.
Such is the case with Primary Productions, an app maker based in
New Jersey who has recently filed a $200 billion (yes, you read
that right) class action lawsuit against Apple. The company claims
that Apple hurts developers through its monopolistic practices and
called them a "stealth monopolist".
This comes after the firm tried to inform users about blockchain
wallets through an app which was later denied entry in the App
Store after review. The lawsuit also accuses Apple of
"blacklisting", "sherlocking", search suppression, and they also
take issue with developer fees, commissions, and more.
This would not be Apple's first tango with developer related
lawsuits. The company is already in a legal battle against Epic
over some of the issues Primary Productions has. There have also
been some governments, like those in South Korea and Japan, who
have investigated these practices which has resulted in some
changes being made that should be good news for developers.
However, despite these concessions, there are some who feel that it
isn't enough. That being said, it is unclear how this particular
lawsuit will turn out, but it will no doubt apply pressure on the
company who might try to reach a less expensive settlement. [GN]
APPLE INC: Makes Changes to App Store Rules Following Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kif Leswing, writing for CNBC, reports that in the past few weeks,
Apple has made several changes to its App Store rules, allowing a
larger number of companies to access a lower commission rate or
evade Apple's mandatory 15% to 30% cut entirely.
But while the concessions can seem like a shift in Apple's approach
to App store policy, when examined in the history of the App Store,
they are a clear continuation of strategy going back to 2008.
Apple has historically made small changes to its "guidelines," a
13,000-word document that says what iPhone apps can and can't do,
while defending its core interests that Apple has the right to
determine which software can operate on iPhones, and set its own
financial terms for those developers.
Apple has also not yet changed its policy of taking 30% of in-app
gaming purchases, which comprise the largest category of App Store
revenue. Apple's App Store grossed $64 billion or more in total
sales in 2020, according to analysis based on Apple disclosures.
JPMorgan analyst Samik Chatterjee said in a recent note that he
believed the financial impact on the company on one emailing change
would be "modest" and other tweaks reducing Apple's cut for some
apps to 15% would be "minimal."
The regulators and developers who criticize Apple's App Store have
a variety of complaints in the past decade: Its 30% cut is too
high, its manual App Review process is arbitrary and powerful, the
App Store depresses prices for software and teaches consumers that
updates are free.
So Apple has carved out categorical exceptions to the 30% fee,
allowed software makers the ability to appeal or challenge its
rules, and changed single rules in response to lawsuits or media
attention.
Events in the coming months may force Apple to tweak its policies
again. A decision in a trial with Epic Games is expected in the
coming weeks. The European Union is examining penalties and
remedies after finding Apple violated antitrust laws after a
Spotify complaint. South Korea recently passed a law that could
force it to allow customers to use alternative billing systems.
But looking at App Store history, it's likely that Apple will
continue to push in private negotiations and public lobbying for
smaller, non-structural changes to the App Store that address some
complaints but does not change its control over iPhone software.
Controversial from the beginning
Apple's App Store has faced controversy since its launch in 2008. A
year after that, the FCC probed the company over its refusal to
approve the Google Voice app.
Now there is more regulatory pressure from countries and developers
around the world, and it is leading to more rule changes. Apple
made some of the recent concessions because of settlements in a
developer class action lawsuit in the United States and an
agreement with Japan's Fair Trade Commission, although Apple is
applying the changes around the world.
Those tweaks essentially allow companies like Spotify and Tinder's
parent company Match Group to bypass Apple's sometimes 30% cut of
gross sales, addressing a standing complaint that dates back at
least five years. Apple also reduced its take to 15% for news apps
that participate in Apple News, its own news app.
Apple officials say they are meaningful changes that address key
concerns from software makers.
Some of Apple's opponents, even those that have petitioned for
those changes, say that they don't go far enough, and are part of a
pattern of dividing its critics by placating some of them with
one-off rule changes.
"Our goal is to restore competition once and for all, not one
arbitrary, self-serving step at a time," Spotify CEO Daniel Ek
tweeted in response to Apple's in-app linking rule change.
"Apple's strategy is Divide and Conquer: carve off special deals
for different developer segments," Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said
last month in a statement to CNBC in response to Apple's news app
concession.
Epic Games is suing Apple seeking to be able to install its own app
store on iPhones -- which is the big change that Apple wants to
fight off.
A history of Apple changing App Store rules
2009: Apple does not approve Google Voice, FCC investigates. A year
after the App Store went live, the FCC started probing it over its
refusal to approve the Google Voice app, which acted as a second
phone number.
Apple responded to the FCC, providing many details about its app
review process for the first time, and arguing that it had the
right to reject entire categories of apps.
In its letter, Apple also detailed for the first time its Executive
Review Board, a body headed by Apple executive Phil Schiller, which
makes final decisions on "new and complex issues."
The Google Voice app was eventually approved in late 2010.
2011: Apple requires in-app payments for digital goods, creates the
"reader rule." In-app purchases with a 30% fee were introduced in
early 2009. But in February 2011, Apple significantly tightened its
control over the App Store by announcing it planned to force
companies to use Apple's in-app purchase system if they offered
digital subscriptions.
At first, Apple offered exceptions for products like Kindle or the
New York Times, where users may have purchased e-books or digital
subscriptions off-app. But companies still needed to implement
in-app purchases with Apple's cut, at the same price as their
off-app subscriptions.
This didn't work for many publishers, who wanted to retain their
direct relationship with customers. By June, Apple had backtracked
on some of its more draconian guidelines, allowing companies to
pass on the 30% fee to customers or to, if they chose, not offer an
Apple in-app purchase at all.
Shortly afterwards, Apple's marketing chief Phil Schiller started
to question Apple's 30% fee, and suggested lower revenue sharing
levels, such as 20%, according to an email released as part of the
Epic Games trial.
This is when Apple started to put its first restrictions on
redirecting users in-app to the publisher's website, which were
reversed in recent weeks.
2016: Apple reduces cut for 2nd year of subscriptions to 15%. By
2015, Spotify had publicly challenged tested Apple's restrictions
on subscriptions, first by emailing customers to tell them it's
less expensive to subscribe directly, instead of through the App
Store. This was against Apple's guidelines, and its one of the
rules that was officially clarified as part of Apple's concessions
last month.
Shortly afterwards, Spotify removed Apple in-app purchases entirely
and started a process of challenging Apple's rules with government
regulators.
In 2016, Apple announced that it would alter its revenue sharing
agreement, specifically for subscription apps. Apple still charged
30% for the first year of a subscription, but subscribers who
lasted more than 12 months would cost the app a lower, 15% rate of
gross sales. Apple also opened subscription billing to all App
Store apps and introduced search ads, which let developers pay for
better placement on an App Store search page.
The announcement was also months after Schiller publicly took over
oversight of the App Store, replacing services head Eddy Cue,
although Schiller had been involved with App Store policy since the
beginning.
Although Schiller is no longer a senior vice president at Apple, he
remains an Apple employee with the title "fellow," and continues to
lead App Store policy.
2019: Apple backtracks on parental control apps, introduces appeals
process. By the time Apple's annual developer conference kicked off
in 2020, the App Store had received considerable antitrust
attention, specifically to its ability to reject apps, especially
apps that competed with Apple features, such as parental control
apps which gave users the ability to set screen time limits for
kids.
Apple reversed some of its policies about parental control apps in
2019 after negative media attention, allowing some of them onto the
store, and creating software tools that they could use to build
their apps.
But the skirmish highlighted that Apple's App Review process was
arbitrary, and sometimes held up app updates over minor details or,
worse, because the app didn't comply with in-app purchase rules.
Developer protests over App Review continued to grow through 2020,
and at Apple's annual developer's conference, Apple said that it
would implement an appeals system for developers to challenge
Apple's rules, although many app makers say it hasn't solved their
complaints with the approval process.
2020: Apple reduces cut to 15% for small companies. Last November,
Apple introduced the Small Business Program, a high-profile olive
branch to lawmakers and app developers.
It reduced the take from 30% to 15% for any company making less
than $1 million per year through the App Store. But because apps
are a winner-take-most business, it didn't hurt Apple's finances
too badly -- one estimate at the time suggested the top 1% of app
publishers generate 93% of App Store revenue. But it did cut the
fees for the majority of individual app developers.
Documents from a settlement in 2021 said that the creation of the
Small Business Program was because of a class-action lawsuit.
2021: Apple reduces cut to 15% for news apps that participate in
Apple News, allows developers to direct users to alternative
payment systems. Antitrust attention on the App Store heated up in
2021. Earlier this year, Apple CEO Tim Cook testified at a trial
over App Store practices against Epic Games. Multiple states and
the U.S. Congress saw bills introduced which could force Apple to
allow alternative app stores.
In August, Apple reduced its subscription cut for any publisher
from 30% to 15%, addressing a segment of developers who had fought
off App Store changes back in 2011. There was a catch though --
those news apps had to participate in Apple's news aggregator.(
News apps are not the main moneymaker on the App Store.)
Apple also settled a class-action lawsuit with smaller U.S.
developers, paying $100 million and clarifying guidelines about
apps emailing their own customers.
In September, Apple settled with the Japanese FTC and said that
"reader" apps could link out to sign up customers for subscriptions
on their own websites. All three of these changes addressed
concerns that first popped up in 2011 when Apple created the reader
rule. [GN]
ARDELYX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of October 4 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Ardelyx
Inc. (NASDAQ: ARDX) ("Ardelyx") investors that a securities fraud
class action lawsuit has been filed against Ardelyx on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Ardelyx securities between August
6, 2020 and July 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/ardelyx-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=ardelyx
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Toll free (844) 887-9500
Ardelyx is a specialized biopharmaceutical company that focuses on
developing first-in-class medicine to improve treatment for people
with cardiorenal disease. This includes patients with chronic
kidney disease ("CKD") on dialysis suffering from elevated serum
phosphorus, or hyperphosphatemia; and CKD patients and/or heart
failure patients with elevated serum potassium, or hyperkalemia.
Ardelyx's lead product candidate, tenapanor, is a supposedly
first-in-class medicine for the control of serum phosphorus in
adult patients with CKD on dialysis.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding tenapanor and the likelihood that it would be approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The complaint
further alleges that the defendants possessed, were in control
over, and, as a result, knew, or had reason to know, 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, if not certain, that the FDA
would not approve the drug.
Ardelyx investors may, no later than September 28, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Communicating with any
counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery
achieved in this case. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
ARDELYX INC: Tenapanor Related Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ardelyx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit related the
company's false and misleading statements and omissions of material
fact related to tenapanor.
On July 30, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California naming as defendants Ardelyx and two current officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact related to tenapanor.
The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ardelyx securities between August 6, 2020, and
July 19, 2021.
The plaintiff seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs,
including attorneys' fees.
Ardelyx said, "We believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit
and we have not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability
associated with these legal proceedings."
Ardelyx, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative
first-in-class medicines to improve treatment for people with
kidney and cardiorenal diseases. The company is based in Waltham,
Massachusetts.
ART ANGELS: Morales Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Art Angels Los
Angeles Inc., et al. The case is styled as Nataly Morales,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Art
Angels Los Angeles Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 to 10
inclusive; Case No. 2:21-cv-06847-MWF-JDE (C.D. Cal., Aug. 25,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Art Angels Los Angeles -- https://www.artangels.net/ -- is an art
gallery in West Hollywood, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
BLINK CHARGING: Bid to Dismiss Bush Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Blink Charging Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled,
Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527, is
pending.
On August 24, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Michael Farkas (Blink's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael
Rama (Blink's Chief Financial Officer).
On September 1, 2020, another purported securities class action
lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No.
20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and
seeking to recover the same alleged damages (the "Vittoria
Lawsuit").
On October 1, 2020, the court consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit
with the Bush Lawsuit and on December 21, 2020 the court appointed
Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.
The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 19,
2021. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and
functionality of the Blink Network, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Amended Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to
recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Blink's common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19,
2020.
On April 20, 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which has now been fully briefed and
is ready for review.
The Company believes that the claim has no merit, and wholly and
completely disputes the allegations therein. The Company has
retained legal counsel in order to defend the action vigorously.
The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as
of June 30, 2021 as it determined that any such loss contingency
was either not probable or estimable.
Blink Charging Co. a leading owner, operator and supplier of
proprietary electric vehicle charging equipment and networked EV
charging services. The company serves both residential and
commercial EV charging settings, enabling EV drivers to easily
recharge at various location types. The company is based in Miami
Beach, Florida.
BLUECITY HOLDINGS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
Bluecity Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:BLCT)
This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired BlueCity American
Depositary Shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 8, 2020.
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Bluecity Holdings Limited. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Defendants had overstated
BlueCity's business and financial prospects; (2) the Company was
ill-equipped to absorb the costs of becoming a publicly traded
company, including IPO- and growth-related costs; (3) as a result
of all the foregoing, Defendants had misrepresented the Company's
capability for sustainable growth; and (4) as a result, the
Offering Documents were materially false or misleading and/or
failed to state information required to be stated therein.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/bluecity-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form/?id=19383&from=1
Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE American:ANVS)
Investors Affected: May 21, 2021 - July 28, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Annovis Bio, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Annovis's ANVS401 (Posiphen), an orally
administrated drug which purportedly inhibited the synthesis of
neurotoxic proteins that are the main cause of neurodegeneration,
did not show statistically significant results across two patient
populations as to factors such as orientation, judgement, and
problem solving; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/annovis-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=19383&from=1
View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ:VIEW)
Investors Affected: November 30, 2020 - August 16, 2021
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
View, Inc f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp II. The filed complaint
alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) View had not
properly accrued warranty costs related to its product; (2) there
was a material weakness in View's internal controls over accounting
and financial reporting related to warranty accrual; (3) as a
result, the Company's financial results for prior periods were
misstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/view-inc-f-k-a-cf-finance-acquisition-corp-ii-loss-submission-form/?id=19383&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
CALIFORNIA HEALTH: Ford Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, P.C. The case is styled as Ila Ford, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, P.C., a California
Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-101962 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Aug. 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
California Health And Recovery Solutions, P.C. is an active
Californian business entity.[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
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Cert. of Injunctive Relief Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KYLE and JO ANN
TREUMANN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a SPECTRUM, Case No.
4:20-cv-00062-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying the following Injunctive Relief Class under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2):
"All persons who have requested that Charter (or any third-
party selling Charter goods and services by telephone) not
call them, where the request not to call occurred in the last
five years."
The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enter a preliminary injunction
intended to wrench Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. into
compliance with federal and state telemarketing law, and prevent
ongoing violations.
This action seeks redress on behalf of Plaintiffs and other
consumers who received calls on behalf of Charter in violation of
the do-not-call rules of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), and no-call and caller ID rules of the Missouri
Telemarketing No-Call List Law.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3E1NSqw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
909 Davis St., Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (312) 729-5288
E-mail aburke@burkelawllc.com
dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com
- and -
John F. Edgar, Esq.
Brendan M. McNeal, Esq.
EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 440
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 531-0033
E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
bmm@edgarlawfirm.com
CHATHAM, ON: Faces Class Action Over Wheatley Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Campbell, writing for CTV Windsor News, reports that more
community consultations are expected as the investigation continues
into the source of what caused a massive gas explosion in downtown
Wheatley late last month.
Chatham-Kent Fire Chief Chris Case was blunt when curious residents
asked when they can return to their homes following the Aug. 26
evacuation and explosion.
"There will be nobody moving back to their homes," said Case.
More than 325 people watched the live virtual update from the
municipality and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Chief Case says
it's difficult to provide the answers people want, because many
unknowns remain in place.
"We're giving the answers about what we know right now," Case
explained the current issue is that the source of the gas leak has
yet to be determined and has proved unpredictable. Case says, "we
need to know more and we've needed to know more for a little while
now."
Investigators have confirmed hydrogen sulphide gas led to the blast
that injured more than 20 people, sending three municipal workers
to hospital with serious, but non-life threatening injuries and
levelling two buildings near Erie and Talbot Streets.
Case says the exact source of the gas and how it ignited have yet
to be determined, while Chatham-Kent's CAO says the Office of the
Ontario Fire Marshall cleared it's on-scene investigation on Sept.
3.
Shropshire explained determining the next steps remains difficult
until the source is located.
"There could have been a change in some of the pathways that had
the gas go into the 15 Erie Street North property, that could have
changed the situation geologically so that now the gas is going
some place else."
Strategic cleanup is underway as the threat of another explosion
remains real and evacuation orders remain in place.
Windsor-based law firm Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP expressed its
intention to file a class action lawsuit against Chatham-Kent
police, the municipality and the province following the Wheatley
explosion.
"We did receive notice of that intended class action lawsuit on
Sept. 3," said Dave Taylor, Chatham-Kent's director of legal
service, during a media conference call that followed the community
session. "At this time we really just can't make any other comments
about it but certainly we'll be reviewing it."
Officials say more than 150 households have reached out for aid and
the municipality is currently providing accommodations for 27
people.
Anyone with photos or information on former gas well locations near
the area of the explosion is asked to reach out to the
municipality, as are any residents who evacuated and have not
informed municipal staff yet. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Bond Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Clover Health Investment, Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, Bond
v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096
(M.D. Tenn.).
In February 2021, the Corporation and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in putative class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee: Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp. et al., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.); Kaul v. Clover Health Investments,
Corp., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00101 (M.D. Tenn.); Yaniv v. Clover
Health Investments, Corp., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00109 (M.D.
Tenn.); and Tremblay v. Clover Health Investments, Corp., et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00138 (M.D. Tenn.).
The complaints assert violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. The
Kaul action asserts additional claims under sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act.
The complaints generally relate to allegations published in an
article issued on February 4, 2021, by Hindenburg Research LLC.
The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or acquired Clover securities during the
proposed class period (which begins on October 6, 2020, and,
depending on the complaint, ends on February 3, 2021, or February
4, 2021), as well as certain other costs.
In April 2021, the Middle District of Tennessee class actions
described above were consolidated under Bond v. Clover Health
Investments, Corp., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00096 (M.D. Tenn.) as
lead case.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff, approved a lead counsel and a
liaison counsel, and approved the parties' proposed schedule for
filing an amended complaint and the defendants' responses.
In June 2021, the lead plaintiff and a named plaintiff filed the
amended complaint, asserting violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange
Act.
The amended complaint names Clover and certain of its officers and
directors as defendants and removes certain defendants named in the
initial complaints. The amended complaint generally relates to
allegations published in the Hindenburg Article and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of all persons and entities other
than the defendants who purchased or acquired Clover securities
during the proposed class period (which begins on October 6, 2020,
and ends on February 3, 2021), as well as certain other costs.
Pursuant to the court's briefing schedule, the defendants' response
to the amended complaint is due in August 2021.
Clover Health Investment, Corp. provides insurance services. The
Company offers hospital, medical, and private insurance services.
Clover Health Investment serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Franklin, Tennessee.
COINBASE GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Ramsey Purported Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a purported securities class action captioned Ramsey v.
Coinbase Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05634.
On July 22, 2021, a purported securities class action captioned
Ramsey v. Coinbase Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05634,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company, its directors, certain of its
officers and employees, and certain venture capital and investment
firms.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by
making false or misleading statements and omissions in connection
with the registration statement and prospectus that the company
filed in connection with its Direct Listing.
The plaintiff is a purported former stockholder seeking to
represent a class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus.
Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
Coinbase said, "We dispute the claims and intend to vigorously
defend against them. Based on the preliminary nature of the
proceedings in this case, the outcome of this matter remains
uncertain."
Coinbase Global, Inc., branded Coinbase, is an American company
that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform. Coinbase operates
remote-first, and lacks an official physical headquarters.
COLORADO: Sued for Allegedly Violating Medicaid Act Mandate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seaman, writing for The Denver Post, reports that Colorado
is violating a Medicaid Act mandate by not providing certain mental
health services to eligible children at home or in their community,
which in some cases has led to teenagers experiencing "unnecessary
institutionalization," a federal lawsuit filed on Sept. 3 alleges.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court of Colorado against
Kim Bimestefer, the head of the state Department of Health Care
Policy and Financing, on behalf of three unnamed teenagers and
their families, including one with a history of suicide attempts
and self-harm who was in a metro Denver emergency room for about a
month.
"Colorado has been ignoring their duty to provide mental health
services to the children of Colorado for too long," attorney Robert
H. Farley Jr. said in a statement. "We hope this lawsuit will force
the state to find a solution for providing care to all of
Colorado's children and youth who need it."
Marc Williams, spokesman for the Department of Health Care Policy
and Financing, declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing pending
litigation.
The suit is also seeking class-action status on the behalf of
people under the age of 21 who qualify for Medicaid and have been
diagnosed with mental health or behavioral disorders and who have
been recommended to receive Intensive Home and Community-based
services.
The plaintiffs in the suit include a 16-year-old girl who was in an
emergency room between July 31 to Aug. 24 because the state has
been unable to find a long-term residential program in the state to
help her get treatment. Another is a 13-year-old boy who has been
hospitalized since March 9, according to the news release.
The third is a 13-year-old girl who is at home, but needs servers
to help with her behavioral disorders. The teenager has been in a
psychiatric hospital three times since March 22. [GN]
DIDI GLOBAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi" or
the "Company") (NYSE:DIDI) and reminds investors of the September
7, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in DiDi stock or
options (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's June 2021
initial public offering; and/or (b) securities between June 30,
2021 and July 21, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292
or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional
information: www.faruqilaw.com/DIDI.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
that DiDi's apps did not comply with applicable laws and
regulations governing privacy protection and the collection of
personal information; (2) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to incur scrutiny from the Cyberspace Administration of
China; (3) the CAC had already warned DiDi to delay its IPO to
conduct a self-examination of its network security; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, DiDi's apps were reasonably likely to be taken
down from app stores in China, which would have an adverse effect
on its financial results and operations; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the "DiDi Chuxing" app
because it "collect[ed] personal information in violation of
relevant PRC laws and regulations." The Company was ordered to make
changes to comply with Chinese data protection rules to "ensure the
safety of the personal information of users." DiDi stated that it
"will strive to rectify any problems, improve its risk prevention
awareness and technological capabilities, protect users' privacy
and data security, and continue to provide secure and convenient
services to its users." Though users who previously downloaded the
app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that "the app takedown
may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China."
On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the Company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
"conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security." On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding DiDi's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
DOLLAR TREE: Magpali Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Misty Magpali, an individual, on behalf
of herself, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Dollar
Tree Stores, Inc., a Virginia corporation, Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0008006 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Aug.
26, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Dollar Tree -- https://www.dollartree.com/ -- formerly known as
Only $1.00, is an American chain of discount variety stores that
sells items for $1 or less.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Fl.
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-325-0492
Fax: 619-325-0496
Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
ECOARK HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ecoark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that on July 15, 2021, the
Company and its directors entered into a Settlement and Mutual
Release resolving the legal fees it agreed to pay when it settled a
class action that was reached without any financial consequences
other than paying agreed upon legal fees.
The Company paid $50 to the Plaintiff's attorneys.
Bentonville, Arkansas-based Ecoark Holdings, Inc., is an innovative
AgTech company that is focused on modernizing the post-harvest
fresh food supply chain for a wide range of organizations including
growers, distributors and retailers. Ecoark Holdings is the parent
company of Ecoark, Inc., and Magnolia Solar Inc.
EDUCATION PRINCIPLE: Lacon Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Education Principle
Foundation, et al. The case is styled as Ryan Lacon, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Education
Principle Foundation, SOUTH UNIVERSITY - MEMBER, LLC, SOUTH
UNIVERSITY, SAVANNAH, LLC, YODEL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-03957 (E.D. Va., Sept. 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Telephone Consumer
Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.
Education Principle Foundation operates as a non-profit
organization. The Organization offers teaching and learning
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 463-2101
Fax: (202) 463-2103
Email: llederer@baileyglasser.com
ERIE INDEMNITY: Stephenson Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Stephenson, Christina Stephenson, Susan Rubel and Steven
Barnett, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
policyholders of Erie Insurance Exchange residing in Pennsylvania
v. ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. (), brought this lawsuit
because, while serving as the Policyholders' managing agent and
attorney-in-fact, Indemnity unilaterally sets the annual Management
Fee and has allowed conflicts of interest to wholly undermine its
duties of care, honesty, candor and undivided loyalty, and full
disclosure to the Policyholders.
According to the complaint, when purchasing their insurance
policies, Plaintiffs and the Policyholders all executed a
Subscriber's Agreement designating Defendant Erie Indemnity Company
as their attorney-in-fact and managing agent. As attorney-in-fact
and managing agent, Indemnity is a fiduciary for all of the
Policyholders and exercises total control over Exchange's
operations. Indemnity receives an annual "Management Fee" for
serving as the Policyholders' managing agent and attorney-in-fact.
The Management Fee is set annually and is calculated as a
percentage of the premiums paid by each Policyholder.
Indemnity derives essentially all of its income from the Management
Fee. Indemnity operates with an obvious, unabated conflict of
interest in serving as the sole decision-maker when setting the
Management Fee. Setting the Management Fee is a "zero-sum"
transaction. The more Indemnity takes from each Policyholder's
premium payment as a Management Fee, the less funds that are
available to Exchange for loss reserves, expenses or to be returned
to the Policyholders as dividends. Over the last two years, in
breach of its fiduciary duties, Indemnity has taken excessive
Management Fees which have allowed Indemnity to profit
substantially and pay massive dividends and special dividends to
its shareholders all at the Policyholders' direct expense.
Indemnity has breached its fiduciary duties to the Policyholders by
putting its own conflicted interests above those of the
Policyholders. Indemnity has used its power as agent and
attorney-in-fact to generate massive profits from the excessive
Management Fee and funnel hundreds of millions of dollars in
dividends and special dividends to the small group of Indemnity's
controlling shareholders all at the Policyholders' direct expense,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and the putative class members in this lawsuit are
policyholders of Exchange.
Indemnity is a Pennsylvania corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business located in Erie, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: 412.322.9243
Fax: 412.231.0246
Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moore, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Phone: 412.877.5220
Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com
EXTRA SPACE: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Extra Space Storage
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Extra Space Storage
Inc., a Maryland corporation; Does 1 to 10 inclusive; Case No.
2:21-cv-06911-ODW-MRW (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Extra Space Storage -- https://www.extraspace.com/ -- is a real
estate investment trust headquartered in Cottonwood Heights, Utah
that invests in self-storage units.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Murray Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Thomas Murray, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated persons and on behalf of the
general public v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-03804-PD (E.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Federal Insurance Company -- https://www.chubb.com/us-en/ --
provides insurance services. The Company offers fire, marine,
casualty, accident and health, and property insurance
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP - PA
5th Floor
1133 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 253-6307
Fax: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
FEDEX GROUND: Tecu Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Angie Tecu, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FedEx Ground Packaging System, Inc., DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on August 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-06902-JFW-SK to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
FedEx Ground Package System, better known as FedEx Ground --
http://www.fedex.com/-- provides ground delivery of small packages
(weighing up to 150 pounds) throughout the US and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R Hawkins, Esq.
Samantha A Smith, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
samantha@jameshawkinsaplc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander Miller Chemers, Esq.
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Omar Mohammed Aniff, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 239-9800
Fax: (213) 239-9045
Email: alexander.chemers@ogletreedeakins.com
evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com
omar.aniff@ogletree.com
FERDOUS KHANDAKER: Faces Sexual Abuse Class Action From Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pooja Prabbhan, writing for Latin Times, reports that Ferdous
Khandaker, a New-York based doctor originally from Bangladesh
stands accused in a class-action lawsuit after five of his victims
spoke up after nearly two decades. The victims in question filed a
case in the Queens Supreme Court in New York on Aug. 13.
According to New York Daily News, Khandaker faces charges on the
grounds of sexually abusing his patients under the pretext of
medical treatment. Some of the other allegations by the plaintiffs
include assaulting girls as young as 14 in the guise of unsolicited
general breast check-ups, insisting on unnecessary pelvic
examinations, and forcing them to undress as well.
Skeletons came tumbling out of the closet after a plaintiff who
went by the name "Dora" kickstarted a rather harrowing Facebook
thread after she revealed her story in what is being described as
the Bengali community's #metoo movement.
"Everything was going normal, and then he told me to sit on the
bench of the exam table. I did that, and he told me to sit up -- he
was just trying to check my breathing, he said. He was just talking
to me, keeping me in a conversational mode," said a victim who was
named Bea in the lawsuit, as per the report. She recounted how
Khandaker persuaded her to lower her shirt beyond comfort and went
ahead to pull her shirt down while placing the stethoscope to her
left side, exposing her left breast.
Aghast at what just happened, the traumatized teen vowed to never
return. Bea added how the incident was too complicated for her
younger self to decipher, and she decided to maintain a stoic
silence about the incident up until now. Bea revealed that nobody
except for her best friend knew about the incident, as she feared
being ostracized by the community.
The Queens doctor, who was branded a "serial sex hunter",
reportedly slapped a libel suit against the three victims for
tarnishing his repute, and sought a million from each of them.
Scores of victims came out in support of the women who opened up
about their trauma. The court however dismissed the case and
ordered Khandaker to pay the defendant's legal fees.
Khandaker and his attorneys are yet to address the controversy. The
Bangladeshi medico is a renowned name in his home country, and
enjoys the reputation of being a pioneer in terms of rendering
"world-class medical services" while aiming for excellence in
clinical care. He continues to consult and treat patients in his
office at Jackson Heights. [GN]
FIRST SAVINGS: Policy and Practice Related Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Savings Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit related to its
policy and practice of assessing customer fees related to items
presented on accounts with insufficient funds (NSF items).
The Bank received notice of a class action lawsuit on March 23,
2021 regarding its policy and practice of assessing customer fees
related to items presented on accounts with insufficient funds.
The Company has not accrued a loss contingency for this pending
litigation on June 30, 2021 because it has not determined that a
probable loss will occur and cannot reasonably estimate a potential
loss amount.
First Savings Financial Group, Inc. is a bank holding company. The
Company, through its banking subsidiary, offers a variety of
deposit products and provides residential and commercial real
estate loans and construction loans and, to a lesser degree,
consumer loans, including home equity lines of credit, and
commercial business loans to small businesses. The company is based
in Jeffersonville, Indiana.
FMC CORP: Growers Urged to Join Overwatch Herbicide Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Wells, writing for Grain Central, reports that growers who
allege they have suffered barley yield losses through unintended
consequences caused by the use of the herbicide Overwatch are being
invited to take part in a class action.
Proposed by Sydney-based law firm Levitt Robertson, the action
seeks to represent affected growers in Western Australian,
Victorian and South Australia and possibly New South Wales.
Through the Class PR website, the firm alleges Overwatch has
bleached some barley crops, some of which will not recover their
full yield potential.
Manufactured by chemical company FMC, Overwatch is a pre-emergent
herbicide marketed as being suitable to control weeds including
annual ryegrass in southern Australia's three biggest winter crops:
barley, canola and wheat.
"Although Overwatch worked brilliantly with some crops, it was
FMC's failure to steward the administration of the product and have
farmers adjust their sowing systems by using a deeper planting
method, which led to crop damage," the website alleges.
The website states that FMC recommended the same application rate
for barley as for wheat and canola, and agronomists advising
growers were not provided with "crucial product information by FMC"
which could have prevented the alleged damage.
Levitt Robinson is putting out the feelers to see if a "critical
mass" of farming participants can be found in order to make the
running of a class action feasible.
It is holding a series of webinars over coming weeks to inform
growers about the process involved so they can decide whether or
not to join the action.
It said interested growers needed to register as soon as possible.
Levitt Robinson successes in class actions include one on behalf of
Storm Financial investors and franchisees of 7-Eleven.
Levitt Robinson special counsel Brett Imlay said the firm was
looking into a class action on behalf of growers following an
approach several weeks ago from a party in the Victorian Wimmera.
FMC response
FMC has issued the following holding statement in response to the
proposed legal action:
FMC confirms that it is aware that a law firm has called on growers
who are concerned about lingering crop effects following the use of
Overwatch Herbicide in barley to work with the firm, though no
action has been filed.
FMC is currently investigating reports relating to enhanced
bleaching in crops where Overwatch Herbicide has been used on a
case-by-case basis, as much as COVID-19 travel guidelines allow.
The incidence of enhanced bleaching is currently estimated at one
percent or less of the total crop area treated with Overwatch
Herbicide in Australia this year.
FMC takes its stewardship role very seriously and has a
long-standing reputation for working closely with growers to ensure
safe and responsible use of its products. FMC will continue to
monitor the situation and work with concerned growers and industry
partners to support Overwatch(R) users as required for each case.
Maiden year
Overwatch was released to the Australian market this year following
approval by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines
Authority (APVMA).
FMC's Overwatch Herbicide website states its active ingredient
Bixlozone, trademarked Isoflex active, is a Group Q molecule, which
makes it a unique weed control option in the Australian broadacre
market.
FMC Corporation is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and
develops and produces herbicides, fungicides and pesticides for the
global agricultural and horticultural chemical market. [GN]
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Generac Holdings Inc.
("Generac" or the "Company") (NYSE: GNRC) and reminds investors of
the October 19, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Generac stock
or options between February 23, 2021 and July 29, 2021 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/GNRC.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Generac's portable generators posed an unreasonable risk of injury
to users and the public; (2) as a result, at least seven finger
amputations and one crushed finger had been reported to the
Company; (3) as a result, Generac would face increased regulatory
scrutiny; (4) the Company would end sales in its Generac(R) and
DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in the United
States and Canada in June 2021; (5) the Company would recall its
Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable generators in
the United States and Canada; (6) the end of sales and the recall
would occur before the Company's noted hurricane and wildfire
seasons and following the Texas outage-periods the Company has
touted for sales; and (7) as a result, defendants' public
statements and statements to journalists were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
On July 29, 2021, the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), Health Canada, and the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced the Generac portable
generator recall, revealing that the Company had received reports
of seven finger amputations and one finger crushing.
On this news, Generac's stock price fell $31.04 per share, or 7%,
from its July 28, 2021 closing price over the next three trading
days to close at $400.00 per share on August 2, 2021, damaging
investors.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Generac's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
GENERAC HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of October 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 4 disclosed that
purchasers of Generac Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNRC) securities between
February 23, 2021 and July 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period")
have until October 19, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
in the Generac class action lawsuit. The Generac class action
lawsuit charges Generac and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Generac
class action lawsuit -- captioned Khami v. Generac Holdings Inc.,
No. 21-cv-06777 -- was commenced on August 20, 2021 in the Central
District of California and is assigned to Judge Stephen V. Wilson.
A similar lawsuit, Procter v. Generac Holdings Inc., No. 21-cv-
07009, is also pending in the Central District of California.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Generac class action
lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here. You can
also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling
800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Generac class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than October 19, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Generac class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Generac's portable
generators posed an unreasonable risk of injury to users and the
public; (ii) as a result, at least seven finger amputations and one
crushed finger had been reported to Generac; (iii) thus, Generac
would face increased regulatory scrutiny; (iv) Generac would end
sales in its Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000 Watt portable
generators in the United States and Canada in June 2021; (v)
Generac would recall its Generac(R) and DR(R) 6500 Watt and 8000
Watt portable generators in the United States and Canada; (vi) the
end of sales and the recall would occur before Generac's noted
hurricane and wildfire seasons and following the Texas outage --
periods Generac has touted for sales; and (vii) consequently,
defendants' public statements and statements to journalists were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On July 29, 2021, the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Health Canada, and the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development announced the Generac portable
generator recall, revealing that Generac had received reports of
seven finger amputations and one finger crushing. On this news,
Generac's stock price fell approximately 7%, damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Generac
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Generac 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 Generac class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Generac class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Generac class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Netflix Playstore Fee Terms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Techsmart reports that Apple was not the only digital store that
offered Netflix an agreement to maintain the streaming service
using the App Store payment system. Additionally, a lawsuit claims
that Google apparently offered to take a lower cut from
Android-based subscriptions.
Lawsuit claims Google offered favorable terms to Netflix on Play
Store fees
During Apple's lawsuit with Epic, it was revealed that Apple tried
to prevent Netflix from removing its subscription option from the
iOS app by offering better terms. In an unsealed consumer lawsuit
against Google, it appears the search company had the same
problem.
A document in the possible class action lawsuit claims that major
services, including Netflix, Spotify, and Tinder; they wanted to
bypass Google Play billing. Additionally, Netflix wanted to use an
alternative payment system, according to The Verge. In an attempt
to make the video streaming service happy; Google "offered to bring
a significantly reduced revenue share percentage to Netflix," the
complaint states.
Although there are few details in the lawsuit, it indicates that
Google went through the same growing pains as Apple with respect to
Netflix.
In Apple's case, Epic's lawsuit documents revealed that Apple
attempted to negotiate with Netflix. Including offering an Apple TV
bundle, in-depth performance data, for Netflix to join a "video
partner program." Including Apple email promotions and promotions
within Apple Stores.
It appears that Netflix's attempts to directly collect credit card
details from Android users instead of using Google's payment system
led to a "clarification" to developers that require Play Store
applications to use the Google transaction service.
The complaint offers further statements echoing Apple's lawsuit.
Stating that the standard Play Store commission of 30% was high and
could be feasibly reduced. Citing internal communications from
Google, the document says that the Ply Store could break even with
a 6% fee, and that its decision to charge 30% has "no
justification, other than copying Apple." [GN]
GREENLAND TECH: Discloses Payment of $65K Atty's Fees in Wheby Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenland Technologies Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
11, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the
company has paid as $65,000 as attorneys' fees in the settled Wheby
v. Greenland Acquisition Corporation, et al. suit.
On September 19, 2019, a purported class action challenging the
Business Combination was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, captioned Wheby v. Greenland
Acquisition Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1758-MN (D. Del.).
The Action alleged certain violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and sought, among other things, to enjoin
the Business Combination from closing (or, if consummated, to
rescind the Business Combination or award rescissory damages), to
require the Company to issue a separate proxy statement, and to
receive an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 14, 2019, the plaintiff, the Company and all other named
defendants entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding,
pursuant to which a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of the
Action was filed on October 14, 2019.
The Stipulation of Dismissal was approved and entered by the
District Court on October 15, 2019.
Among other things, the Stipulation of Dismissal acknowledged that
the Definitive Proxy Statement mooted the plaintiff's claims
regarding the sufficiency of disclosures, dismissed all claims
asserted in the Action, with prejudice as to the plaintiff only,
permits the plaintiff to seek an award of attorneys' fees in
connection with the mooted claims, and reserves the defendants'
rights to oppose such an award, if appropriate.
Pursuant to the MOU, the parties have engaged in discussions
regarding the amount of attorneys' fees, if any, to which the
plaintiff's counsel is entitled in connection with the Action.
Greenland said, "As of January 25, 2021, we have been settled with
our counterparty which paid into in total $65,000. As of June 30,
2021, those discussions have been completed."
Greenland Technologies Holding Corporation is a British Virgin
Islands company. It is a developer and manufacturer of traditional
transmission products for material handling machineries and a
developer of a robotic cargo carrier prototype expected to be
available for commercial use in the near future in China.
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Bailey FDCPA Suit Removed to M.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gloria Bailey, on Behalf of Herself and Others
Similarly Situated v. Halsted Financial Services, LLC, Case No.
21-CVS-3451, was removed from the Superior Court of Forsyth County
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on Sept. 3, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00686 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Halsted Financial Services, LLC -- https://halstedfinancial.com/ --
is a debt collection agency that specializes in managing and
servicing delinquent account receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Caren D. Enloe, Esq.
SMITH DEBNAM NARRON DRAKE SAINTSING & MYERS, LLP
4601 SIX FORKS RD., STE. 400
RALEIGH, NC 27609
Phone: (919) 250-2000
Fax: (919) 250-2211
Email: cenloe@smithdebnamlaw.com
HAWAI'I: Panel to Review Prison Covid-19 Response Under Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dayton, writing for the Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that
weeks after a federal court judge hammered the state for
mishandling the threat posed by Covid-19, corrections officials
have agreed to allow a panel of experts to inspect Hawaii's prisons
and jails to assess their efforts to prevent the spread of the
coronavirus inside.
Under a proposed settlement filed in federal court on Sept. 3, a
five-member panel will be appointed to interview staff and inmates,
and make recommendations or raise concerns about the pandemic
response.
The panel will include Dr. Homer Venters, an epidemiologist and
former chief medical officer of the New York City Correctional
Health Services, said Eric Seitz, whose law firm filed the
class-action lawsuit.
Venters has inspected dozens of correctional facilities across the
country during the pandemic to gauge their responses to Covid-19,
and has overseen similar agreements in other states including
Connecticut and California, Seitz said.
It will also include former Hawaii prison Medical Director Dr. Kim
Thorburn, who has years of experience with health care in the
Hawaii prison system as the state's corrections medical director
from 1987 to 1996, Seitz said.
The current Department of Public Safety Corrections Health Care
Administrator Gavin Takenaka will also be part of the panel, along
with Public Safety Deputy Director for Corrections Tommy Johnson
and retired Associate Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Daniel
Foley.
"What this does is it accomplishes what we set out to do, which is
to get medical experts into the prisons to monitor what they're
doing, and hopefully to give them assistance and advice about what
to do better," said Seitz.
U.S. District Court Judge Jill Otake issued a scathing decision on
July 13 that found the state failed to follow its own Pandemic
Response Plan. She declared the response to the spread of Covid-19
so poorly executed that corrections officials demonstrated
"objective deliberate indifference" to the threat it posed to the
inmates.
Otake issued a preliminary injunction ordering the correctional
system to follow its own pandemic response plan, and also declared
in her ruling that the class-action lawsuit accusing the state of
violating the inmates' constitutional rights during the pandemic
will likely succeed at trial.
Hawaii now holds a total of more than 4,000 inmates in prisons and
jails in Hawaii and Arizona, and more than 2,700 Hawaii inmates
have been infected during the pandemic. That includes more than 500
who have tested positive since Otake's ruling.
Covid-19 has been blamed in nine inmate deaths, and at least two
more prisoners also had the virus when they died last year. Those
two inmates were deemed to have died of pre-existing health
problems.
Under the proposed settlement filed with the court on Sept. 3,
corrections officials will make "best efforts" to actually
implement the department's Pandemic Response Plan "based on the
individual facilities' physical space, staffing, population,
operations, and other resources and conditions."
The five-member Agreement Monitoring Panel will be advisory only,
and will provide guidance and recommendations to the department on
quarantining, sanitation, social distancing, testing, contact
tracing and vaccination.
"Really, what I wanted to do was get experts in there who could
tell us what's going on." -- Attorney Eric Seitz
DPS spokeswoman Toni Schwartz said in a written statement on Sept.
3 that the department "will work closely with the advisory panel.
The department will do everything within its ability and control to
follow through with the guidance and recommendations the panel
makes towards improving current procedures and coping with the
COVID-19 situation in our jails and prisons."
The panel must give 72 hours notice before the members visit a
correctional facility, and under the agreement will be provided
full access to staff and inmates. The monthly reports that will be
produced by the panel are to be kept confidential, according to the
settlement.
"The AMP will provide insight into and accountability for DPS's
COVID-19 response and will also benefit DPS by providing expert
guidance as DPS navigates this challenging public health crisis,"
according to the proposed settlement.
The correctional system will submit weekly reports to the panel
that will include testing results, the number of inmates who are
hospitalized with Covid-19, and the number of inmates who die from
the virus.
The agreement requires that inmates be allowed to shower daily, and
must be issued at least two face masks. Staff will be required to
wear masks "where necessary" within the facilities.
The work of the panel is scheduled to last until Jan. 31, but can
be extended to the end of March if a majority of the panel agrees,
according the settlement.
Seitz described the settlement as "potentially a very successful
step forward."
He said the panel will "gather information other than what the
department is officially putting out," and include that information
in its reports.
"Really, what I wanted to do was get experts in there who could
tell us what's going on," he said. Although the panel has no
authority to force the prison system to make changes, Seitz said
his office will use the reports it provides as needed.
The settlement prohibits Seitz from filing a motion alleging
contempt of court for violating the agreement or the pandemic
protocols, but it does allow lawyers in the case to ask the court
to step in to require remedies for problems within the facilities.
"We have the option any time that there are recommendations or
things that need to be done, to go back to the magistrate or to go
to a further dispute process to enforce whatever the panel finds,"
he said.
If necessary, that could be done by seeking another injunction, or
even by filing another lawsuit, Seitz said. The settlement calls
for the panel to be up and running within two weeks. [GN]
HAWAI'I: Settles Inmates' Class Action v. Public Safety Department
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jolanie Martinez, writing for HawaiiNewsNow, reports that a
settlement has been reached in a class action suit between Hawaii
inmates and the state Department of Public Safety.
The suit challenged the state's handling of the pandemic in prisons
and jails.
The settlement resulted in a new five-person panel that will be
given free rein to go into the prisons, speak with inmates, medical
and correctional staff and assess prison grounds.
Attorney Eric Seitz said the panel includes two medical experts.
Among them: Dr. Kim Thorburn, who was hired as the state's first
medical director for the prison medical system because of a lawsuit
that Seitz was involved in back in the 1980s.
"And she created and built the medical system in the prisons," said
Seitz. "She's very good when it comes to prison medicine."
Dr. Homer Venters is also on the panel.
Seitz said he was the head of medical services for the prisons in
New York City.
"When he retired from that position, he was spending the last
couple of years going around the country, as an expert helping
prisons do exactly what we're hoping to do here," said Seitz.
In addition, there are two members from the state Department of
Public Safety on the panel who were appointed by the state and
retired Judge Daniel Foley.
The panel will be making recommendations on what needs to be
implemented to ensure the safety of both inmates and staff to
prevent outbreaks and further spread.
Recommendations include social distancing, testing, quarantine
procedures and vaccine availability.
More than 2,700 Hawaii inmates have tested positive for COVID
during the pandemic, including as part of several large outbreaks.
Nine inmates have died.
Seitz said the panel is a step in the right direction.
"This for us is basically a stage in this litigation, this is the
first step, we want to make sure that the places are safe or as
safe as they can be," said Seitz.
And then once that's accomplished, we'll go back and address
possible damages actions that can be brought for people who got
COVID and who died under circumstances which were preventable."
The panel must give 72-hour notice before visiting a correctional
facility.
The Attorney General's Office released the following statement:
"Both DPS and the representatives of the inmate class are satisfied
that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable."
Seitz said members of the panel are expected to begin gathering
information in two weeks. [GN]
HPS MECHANICAL: Jaimez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HPS Mechanical, Inc.
The case is styled as Fredi Jaimez, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. HPS
MECHANICAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-21-101987
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Aug. 26, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
HPS Mechanical, Inc. -- https://www.hpsmechanical.com/ -- provides
plumbing services.[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
HUM NUTRITION: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hum Nutrition Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Hum Nutrition Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-05003 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 7, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hum Nutrition -- https://www.humnutrition.com/ -- offers
high-quality vitamins and supplements designed to enhance and
support your lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Arbitration in Nguyen Suit Set for October 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that an arbitration
hearing has been scheduled for October 25, 2021 in the Tam Nguyen
case.
On April 20, 2017, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, entitled
Nguyen v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage et al.
The plaintiffs contend the defendants did not pay purported class
members overtime compensation or provide meal and rest breaks, as
required by law. The action seeks to invalidate any waiver signed
by a purported class member of their right to bring a class action
and seeks damages, restitution, penalties, attorney's fees,
interest, and an injunction against unfair, deceptive, and unlawful
activities.
On August 23, 2018, the court (1) granted the defendants motion to
compel arbitration as to all claims, except for the plaintiffs'
claims under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA); (2) ordered the plaintiffs to submit their claims (other
than PAGA claims) to arbitration on an individual, non-class,
non-collective, and non-representative basis; (3) dismissed all
class and collective claims with prejudice to the plaintiffs and
without prejudice to putative class members; and (4) stayed all
claims that were compelled to arbitration, as well as the PAGA
claims.
Plaintiffs Jason Nguyen and Tam Nguyen each submitted their
respective demands for individual arbitration to the American
Arbitration Association.
An arbitration hearing has not yet been set in the Jason Nguyen
case.
An arbitration hearing has been scheduled for October 25, 2021 in
the Tam Nguyen case.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment in Favor of Timm Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Maryland Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court (and the
Court of Special Appeals) in granting summary judgment in favor of
the plaintiffs in Timm v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., on
the Preferred B voting rights. Although the Court of Appeals found
the voting rights provision to be ambiguous, it concluded that the
extrinsic evidence presented to the Circuit Court, which it found
to be undisputed, supported the plaintiffs' interpretation that the
voting rights provision required separate voting by the Preferred B
stockholders to amend the Preferred B Articles Supplementary.
On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm v. Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc., et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the
Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
(Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection
with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and
Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the
required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to
amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were
given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the
tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an
improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a
breach of a fiduciary duty.
The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the
Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and
reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C
stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C
holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses.
On July 16, 2018, the Circuit Court entered a Judgement Order
whereby it (1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all
defendants on all claims related to the Preferred C holders and all
claims against all individual defendants thereby affirming the
validity of the 2009 amendments to the Preferred C Articles
Supplementary; (2) declared its interpretation of the voting
provision language in the Preferred B Articles Supplementary to
mean that consent of two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was
required to approve the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles
Supplementary, which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the
amendments invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles
Supplementary in effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special
election within sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to
elect two directors to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004
Preferred B Articles Supplementary (which Directors will remain on
the Company's Board of Directors until such time as all accumulated
dividends on the Preferred B have been paid or set aside for
payment); and (4) declared that the Company is required to pay
three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004
Preferred B Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million,
but did not order the Company to make any payment at this time).
The Circuit Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome
of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal.
On October 2, 2019, the Court of Special Appeals held oral argument
for all appeals in the matter. On February 5, 2020, the Court of
Special Appeals requested that the parties provide a supplemental
memorandum explaining the appealability of the original Circuit
Court opinion which the Company responded to on February 21, 2020.
On April 1, 2020, the Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion
affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Series B
voting rights arguing that the voting rights provision was not
ambiguous. In response, the Company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals appealing the Court of
Special Appeals opinion.
The Maryland Court of Appeals granted the writ of certiorari on
July 13, 2020, agreeing to hear the Company's appeal. All parties
submitted their briefs and oral argument was held on December 4,
2020.
On July 15, 2021, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the Circuit Court (and the Court of Special Appeals) in
granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the
Preferred B voting rights and, although the Court of Appeals found
the voting rights provision to be ambiguous, it concluded that the
extrinsic evidence presented to the Circuit Court, which it found
to be undisputed, supported the plaintiffs' interpretation that the
voting rights provision required separate voting by the Preferred B
stockholders to amend the Preferred B Articles Supplementary.
Accordingly, the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles
Supplementary were not validly adopted and the 2004 Preferred
Articles Supplementary remain in effect. In addition, once the
Circuit Court lifts its stay, the Company will be required to pay
the three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the
2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary (approximately $1.2
million, which had been previously accrued for), and the Preferred
B stockholders shall be entitled to call a special meeting for the
election of two additional directors.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Trial in McNair-Batres Suit Set for Jan. 18 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the trial date in
the consolidated McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall
Mortgage and Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage,
is scheduled on January 18, 2022.
On September 18, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled McNair v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.
The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements.
The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest,
attorney's fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory,
and equitable relief. On March 8, 2019, a First Amended Complaint
was filed, which added a claim alleging Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) violations.
On March 12, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation with the court
stating (1) the plaintiff's individual claims should be arbitrated
pursuant to the parties' arbitration agreement, (2) the class
claims should be struck from the First Amended Complaint, and (3)
the plaintiff will proceed solely with regard to her PAGA claims.
This case was consolidated with the Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp.
dba CashCall Mortgage case discussed below with a rescheduled trial
date of January 18, 2022.
On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v.
Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage.
The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and
purported class members overtime compensation, provide required
meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements. The
action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney's
fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and
equitable relief.
On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging only PAGA violations and seeking penalties, attorneys'
fees, and such other appropriate relief. This case was
consolidated with the McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall
Mortgage discussed above with a rescheduled trial date of January
18, 2022.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates as an independent
residential mortgage lender in the United States. It operates
through three segments: Mortgage Lending, Real Estate Services, and
Long-Term Mortgage Portfolio. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Sears Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a stockholder class action suit entitled, Sears
v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL.
on March 23, 2020, a Stockholder Class Action Complaint was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a stockholder and purported
class representative, Samuel P. Sears, commencing litigation
captioned Sears v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL.
The plaintiff amended his complaint in May 2020.
The defendants named in the Putative Class Action are identical to
those named in the Action, with the exception that Inhibitor
Therapeutics, Inc. is not a party to the litigation.
The Putative Class Action asserts three direct breach of fiduciary
duty claims (one against Mayne only, another against the Individual
Defendants, and a third against all defendants) and the facts
underlying those claims almost entirely mirror those alleged in the
Action.
On December 10, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order
coordinating the Action and the Putative Class Action for purposes
of the litigations.
The Company believes the Putative Class Action is legally and
factually baseless, and the Individual Defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously.
Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a development stage
pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for patients with cancer and
non-cancerous proliferation disorders. Inhibitor Therapeutics
operates in the State of Florida. The company is based in Tampa,
Florida.
INSURANCE AUSTRALIA: Faces Business Interruption Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Insurancenews.cm.au reports that Slater and Gordon says it has
launched a class action against IAG on behalf of "thousands of
Australian business interruption insurance policyholders" whose
claims for losses from forced pandemic-related closures have been
declined by the insurer.
The plaintiff law firm confirmed with insuranceNEWS.com.au it is
leading the lawsuit after IAG announced this morning it is aware
that CMC Hospitality has filed an application in the Federal Court
starting a representative proceeding against the business.
IAG did not mention the name of the law firm and says it has not
been served with the application except that "it appears to relate
to insureds who hold policies with CGU and business interruption
losses related to COVID-19".
The insurer also says it is not aware of the detailed nature of the
application.
"IAG notes it is one of a number of insurers participating in an
industry test case in the Federal Court of Australia, and that the
hearing was due to begin Sept. 6," the insurer said.
"IAG is participating in the industry test case, which it believes
is the most efficient process to obtain clarity and to resolve
issues for customers with business interruption claims.
"IAG intends to follow the final rulings of the courts and assess
any business interruption claims as quickly as possible following
the final resolution of the issues in court."
The insurer says it "remains satisfied with the adequacy of its
provision for business interruption claims".
Slater and Gordon Practice Group Leader Mathew Chuk says the
strategy by insurers to date has been to been to divert, deny and
delay.
"Businesses have already waited 18 months, with no clear end in
sight, for clarity on their business interruption insurance
coverage," Mr. Chuk said in a statement to insuranceNEWS.com.au.
"For many, this has been the toughest 18 months they've faced, and
payment of these claims is sorely needed.
The objective of this class action is to have the claims of the
insured assessed and paid out as quickly as possible."
Slater and Gordon says the class action is managed and funded by
litigation funder ICP. [GN]
INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Onion Rings Snacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Shalvey, writing for Markets Insider, reports that a customer
is suing the company behind TGI Fridays Onion Rings Snacks, which
are sold in grocery stores and supermarkets.
The lawsuit was filed by Daniel Hiltz, of Sandwich, Illinois,
against Inventure Foods, a subsidiary of Utz Brands, in US District
Court in the Northern District of Illinois.
Hiltz alleged in the suit that the snack doesn't contain real
onions and is misleading customers.
"I think it's a pretty simple type of case. The product is
represented as one thing on the front, and, on the back, is
truthfully what it is," said Spencer Sheehan, of New York-based law
firm Sheehan & Associates, who is representing Hiltz.
An Utz Brands spokesperson declined to comment on a pending
lawsuit. Sheehan filed a waiver of service document, which said
Cozen O'Connor, of Chicago, would be representing Inventure Foods.
The lawsuit marked the latest in a series of class-action
complaints against Inventure Foods over the contents of its
snacks.
Sheehan filed a similar complaint with plaintiff Megan Nason in US
District Court in the Southern District of New York in December
2020. That suit said the company's TGI Fridays Mozzarella Sticks
Snacks contain cheddar, not mozzarella cheese. That case was
dismissed in May, according to court filings.
"I'm regularly contacted by individuals with issues of potentially
misleading labeling," Sheehan said. "Most of the time, it's not
anything that you can do anything about."
In seeking to dismiss the Mozzarella Sticks Snacks case, a lawyer
representing Inventure Foods wrote: "On these allegations, no
reasonable consumer would be misled by the subject labeling to
believe that inside the package was the same 'quintessential bar
food' you may purchase at a local restaurant."
The Onion Rings Snacks lawsuit listed the snack's ingredients as
they were printed on the back of the packaging. Onion powder, which
is made from parts of dehydrated onions, was the fourth ingredient
listed, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit said onion powder has "a flavor ten times stronger than
real onions," but it "lacks the depth of real onion flavor."
"Consumers will incorrectly believe the faux-onion taste is due to
having more onion ingredients when this is not true," the lawsuit
said.
The lawsuit called into question the wording of the Onion Ring
Snacks label, which read: "Onion Rings" in all-caps, with a smaller
"Snacks" underneath it. Below that, it said, "Original." And, in
even smaller text, it said "Natural and Artificially Flavored."
The lawsuit says: "Thought the product's front label states
'Natural and Artificially Flavored,' this is in a very small font
size, and difficult for consumers to view. Moreover, 'Natural and
Artificially Flavored' fails to tell consumers the product
substitutes onion power for real onions."
Their first response to the lawsuit is due in October, per a court
filing. [GN]
JUNIPER NETWORK: 401(k) Plan Litigation May Spur More Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margarida Correia, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
David Levine sees the evolution of plaintiffs' complaints as
'challenging more and more pieces of the steps that are necessary
to run a plan.'
A recent lawsuit chiding Juniper Networks Inc. for offering
participants in its 401(k) plan a managed account that it alleges
was too expensive could lead to a spate of similar suits, some
legal experts believe.
"I think this may be the harbinger of more lawsuits being filed,"
said Carol Buckmann, a partner at law firm Cohen & Buckmann PC in
New York, referring to the suit lodged against Juniper by a 401(k)
participant.
The lawsuit, filed Aug. 11 in U.S. District Court in San Jose,
Calif., takes aim at Juniper, its board of directors and investment
committee for authorizing the plan to pay what it claims were
unreasonably high fees for managed account services, arguing that
the services were not materially different than what participants
could get through much cheaper target-date funds. It also alleges
additional fee offenses for other retirement plan services.
"Juniper Networks takes its obligations very seriously to prudently
manage its 401(k) plan for employees. We intend to vigorously
defend against the claims asserted," a Juniper spokeswoman said in
an email.
The case, filed by law firms Walcheske & Luzi LLC and Creitz &
Serebin LLP, tracks language in a parallel lawsuit filed against
Nestle USA Inc. in October by the Walcheske firm. Walcheske has
also made similar excessive managed account fee claims in other
cases and has additional lawsuits in the works, said Paul Secunda,
a partner at Walcheske in Brookfield, Wis.
The number of lawsuits targeting alleged high-fee managed accounts
is not known because such claims are still relatively new, but
lawyers agree that the number is growing.
Michael Hadley, a partner at Davis & Harman LLP in Washington, says
he is "seeing more interest by class-action plaintiffs in the fees
of managed account services. "The plaintiffs in many of these cases
have essentially alleged that plan sponsors and sometimes record
keepers are selecting managed account providers that are too
expensive and the managed account fees are too high," he said.
Mr. Hadley identified at least a half-dozen managed account fee
cases filed last year and says that the number since then has
likely increased into the "double digits, maybe more."
Fees cited more often
David Levine, a principal at Groom Law Group, Washington, also has
seen the number of cases citing managed account fees issues "coming
up more and more often."
The uptick comes as record keepers look to managed accounts as a
profitable new revenue source, a bright spot amid traditional
record-keeping services struggling under heavy fee pressure. The
emergence also comes as more plan sponsors offer managed accounts,
a result of having more vendors in the market. The increased uptake
is also due to plan sponsors wanting to give participants access to
the purported personalization benefits of the products, industry
experts say.
In 2019, 40.3% of sponsors offered a managed account, up from 33.7%
in 2014, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America's 63rd
annual survey of profit-sharing and 401(k) plans.
Mr. Levine sees the new claims as the natural progression of an old
story that has been playing out for years as plaintiffs moved
beyond scrutinizing investment fund and record-keeping fees.
"Plaintiffs evolved from saying 'your funds aren't good' to 'your
funds aren't good and you pay too much' to 'your record-keeping
fees are too much' to 'managed accounts are too much,'" said Mr.
Levine. "But underneath it all, it's just the plaintiffs
challenging more and more pieces of the steps that are necessary to
run a plan," he added.
Davis & Harman's Mr. Hadley echoed similar views, saying
plaintiffs' lawyers are using the recent lawsuits to try different
theories to see which ones can stick. "This complaint strikes me as
another example of what we call a shotgun complaint -- shoot a
bunch of pellets and hope one hits," he said, referring to the
Juniper lawsuit.
One notable allegation in the Juniper lawsuit that may stick if
proven true is that the managed account service didn't provide the
customization that people expected, Ms. Buckmann said. "They're
basically saying 'you really haven't done anything different than a
target-date fund,'" she said.
The complaint alleges that because "the asset allocations created
by the managed account services were not materially different than
the asset allocations provided by the age-appropriate target-date
options" already available to participants, the reasonable fee for
the plan's managed account service should be "zero or very close to
zero."
"If this is a true description of the facts, I think a court could
conclude that the participants are overpaying because they are
paying more than they would in a target-date fund, but their extra
fees aren't buying any additional services," Ms. Buckmann said.
The managed account, offered through Strategic Advisors Inc., a
subsidiary of Juniper record-keeper Fidelity Investments Inc.,
costs participants 65 basis points annually, a fee the lawsuit
claims was excessive and "not reasonable given the plan's massive
size and negotiating power."
The plan had $1.4 billion in assets and 6,860 participants at the
end of 2019, according to the company's most recent Form 5500.
The lawsuit claims that there were other managed account providers
offering virtually identical services for significantly lower fees,
citing Betterment LLC, The Vanguard Group Inc. and The Charles
Schwab Corp., which the suit says charge 25 basis points to 30
basis points for plans much smaller than Juniper's.
The lawsuit also holds up the tiered pricing of a managed account
offered through Strategic Advisors to participants in the $4
billion Kimberly-Clark Corp. 401(k) and profit sharing plan,
Irving, Texas. The suit points out that the tiered pricing gives
participants a much better deal than a flat fee on assets.
Kimberly-Clark participants using the managed account are charged
no fee for the first $5,000, 25 basis points up to $100,000, 15
basis points on the next $150,000, and 10 basis points on assets
greater than $250,000, according to the lawsuit.
"They're basically saying the Kimberly participants are paying a
lot less because they use their size to negotiate with the manager
of the managed account," Ms. Buckmann said.
Lawyers generally agree that there will be more suits that include
managed account fee claims, particularly as more participants start
using the accounts. "Not that many people were using these before
and all of sudden they're becoming popular," Ms. Buckmann said of
managed accounts.
Some lawyers, though, are a bit more measured. While managed
accounts appear to be gaining some traction, "it's difficult to
predict litigation trends," said Jodi Epstein, a partner with
Ivins, Phillips & Barker, a law firm in Washington. [GN]
KILGORE ISD: Released Statements About Homestead Tax Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Strough, writing for Kilgore News Herald, reports that
Kilgore ISD addressed some questions and comments the district has
recently received regarding its 2015 repeal of a local optional
homestead tax exemption and the years-long legal case which
followed its repeal at its meeting.
The case, according to Superintendent Andy Baker, may finally reach
a resolution in September of next year.
"First and foremost, I've been asked the question 'Why did Kilgore
ISD remove the school tax homestead exemption?' What Kilgore ISD
ended up removing was a local optional homestead exemption. It is a
misconception right now, a lot of the people that I've been talking
to have this misunderstanding that, when all this went down in
2015, that we as a school district removed something that was
mandatory, that was Texas law. That is just not true. We removed an
additional, optional homestead exemption," Baker said.
Axberg v. Kilgore ISD is a suit filed against the district in Sept.
2016 in Gregg County Court at Law No. 2 by John Claude Axberg,
Darlene Axberg and Sheila Anderson.
KISD rescinded its 20-percent LOHE, which the district had
voluntarily maintained for years, in May 2015 following the Texas
legislature's introduction of proposed constitutional amendments,
Senate Bill 1 and Senate Joint Resolution 1, which mandated Texas
school districts could not remove or reduce their LOHEs from the
amount set for the 2014 tax year through the 2019 tax year.
Twenty Texas school districts made a similar decision and repealed
their LOHEs around the same time as KISD. The constitutional
amendment wasn't approved by voters until November 2015, and KISD
repealed their LOHE in the interim. The state later ruled the
bill's passage retroactively applied to all Texas school districts
who repealed their LOHE in the interim. Eventually, the original
lawsuit against KISD was expanded into a class-action lawsuit.
Baker said the district's initial decision to repeal the optional
exemption came about as the district weighed a state-mandated
$10,000 increase to non-optional property tax exemptions against
years of decreased district revenue.
"If you go back to 2015, we were seeing a consistent decrease in
funds of between two percent and four percent every single year,"
he said. "Part of the wording that was in this bill and part of the
conversations we were hearing about this tax reform, was that, yes,
everybody got the additional $10,000 (in state-mandated tax
exemptions) but if you were a school district in Texas that had
chosen already to give your community this additional homestead
exemption, if you already had that in place, you could not repeal
that optional exemption, once this all became law."
He added KISD sought to avoid ongoing revenue decreases by
repealing their optional exemption before the bill became law. At
the time, he said, declining district revenues and the new,
mandatory $10,000 increase in non-optional exemptions made the
district wary about being forced by the state to continue offering
its optional homestead exemption, possibly leading to further
revenue decline.
"There was no guarantee in these discussions coming out of Austin
that it would be over after that second set of legislative
sessions, in the fourth year. There was a very distinct possibility
that your legislature, at that point, could have chosen to continue
that rule, which would have pushed it past that four years. Knowing
that you have that much revenue being lost in your district,
anywhere from two to four percent for the years preceding, that was
what sparked the discussion at Kilgore ISD that maybe it was time
to repeal that optional exemption."
Baker said he had also been asked why the district chose to fight
the lawsuit. Over the years, state and local courts have sided with
plaintiffs in the case, rejected KISD's appeals, and the Texas
Supreme Court has declined to hear the case on two occasions. Baker
said KISD filed appeals and fought the lawsuit because of what it
saw as significant problems with attorney and court decisions
throughout the case.
KISD first appealed on the grounds that the law passed in September
2015 retroactively applied to districts who repealed LOHEs before
the law's passage. State courts agreed this could be done. The
district also appealed when the original suit was expanded to a
class-action lawsuit, claiming plaintiffs' attorneys have not filed
appropriate paperwork for such an expansion.
He said the district has placed funds it has collected because of
the repealed LOHE in a separate, untouched account which cannot be
used until the district receives final instruction from the state
on how and when the funds should be distributed to local taxpayers.
At this time, he said, the district has not received any guidance
or instructions on how they can legally begin the refunding
process, or even how much money should be refunded to individual
taxpayers.
"There is a date for all this to be fulfilled, and that is in
September of 2022. We're a full year before this is going to go
back to the courts. Not because of us, not because of Kilgore ISD,
but because we have chosen to appeal something else that's not
accurate," he said. "It has gone back into the legal system and the
legal system has set that date for September of next year. That is
what we need, what we need is guidance from the courts. We need
court direction on how to get that task accomplished. Our hands are
tied until they tell us that, and that will take time until next
September. Right now, we're waiting for guidance, because we don't
have a way to refund those funds."
He added the district is working on a video presentation regarding
the case to help explain it to anyone with questions. The video
will be placed on the district's website. [GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Butter Crackers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angela M. Spivey, Esq., Rachel Lowe, Esq., Sean R. Crain, Esq.,
Rachel A. Naor, Esq., Katherine Wheeler Gamsey, Esq., Andrew Garner
Phillips, Esq., Jamie S. George, Esq., Alan F. Pryor, Esq., Samuel
D. Jockel, Esq., Troy A. Stram, Esq., and Kathryn Clifford
Klorfein, Esq., of Alston & Bird, in an article for Mondaq, report
that Plaintiff Can't Believe It's Not Butter (Seriously) Shelton v.
Kraft Heinz Foods Company, No. 3:21-cv-00799 (S.D. Ill. July 11,
2021).
A purchaser of Cracker Barrel brand cheese bites with "butter
crackers" has brought a putative class action alleging that the
company's claim of "butter" crackers is misleading because the fat
used in the crackers is actually oil -- not actual butter made from
real milk or cream. (For a bullet notes version, the complaint
simply alleges: "Butter Crackers Misleading Because No Butter.")
According to the complaint, "butter" crackers are preferable to
consumers over synthetic substitutes for their flavor and health
benefits. The complaint claims that the oil substitutes do not
impart the "smooth like butter" sensations but instead can leave
"beany, powdery, or fishy" flavors and contribute to a "waxy
mouthfeel." Butter is also more expensive. The named plaintiff
contends it was misleading to label the crackers as "butter"
crackers without a disclaimer that the crackers were artificially
flavored. He seeks to represent a nationwide class, alleging claims
of breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and
unjust enrichment.
He-Man Hopeful Harbors Hostility for Paleo Bars
Telemaque v. Caveman Foods LLC, No. 37-2021-00028528 (San Diego
Cnty. Super. Ct. July 2, 2021).
The quest to become the master of the universe is not for the faint
of heart. Without the right diet, a He-Man protégé can easily
just become the next "wimp villain." But eat like a hunter-gatherer
from days gone by, and you too can have the wherewithal to wield a
power sword. That's one possible—albeit unlikely—reason why
Caveman Foods has a line of "paleo" labeled snack and protein
bars.
There's just one problem, or so alleges a complaint filed in
California state court. The paleolithic-style snacks and bars are
alleged to contain ingredients -- like agave syrup -- that no
hunter-gatherer would encounter 10,000 years ago. The agave syrup
in the products, according to the complaint, is so processed that
the "paleo" label is false and deceptive. The plaintiff seeks to
certify a California class of purchasers for California consumer
protection claims. We suppose this means Skeletor can no longer be
considered the Overlord of Evil. Talk about "wimp lash."
Smoking Out What's Real and What's Not
Rudy v. Family Dollar Stores, No. 1:21-cv-03575 (N.D. Ill.
July 5, 2021).
Just another case to add to the growing list of
smoke-flavored-product lawsuits. In this case filed in the Northern
District of Illinois, the plaintiff challenges the labeling of
smoked almonds. Although the product's ingredient list includes
"natural smoked flavor," the plaintiff alleges that calling the
products "smoked almonds" gave the false impression that an
appreciable amount of their smoked taste resulted from having
undergone a smoking process. And even if the product had undergone
smoking, the inclusion of natural smoke flavor is a tacit admission
that the almonds were not smoked enough to impart a characterizing
smoke flavor, the plaintiff alleges. The plaintiff seeks to
represent certain state subclasses asserting claims under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
for breaches of express warranty, breaches of the implied warranty
of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. We will
keep a watchful eye on this recent trend of flavoring cases to see
if the old adage holds true that where there's smoke, there's
fire.
Coffee-Mate Creamer Comes Up Short, Leaving Consumer in Perilous
Uncertainty
Ivory v. Nestlé USA Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01193 (C.D. Ill. July 13,
2021).
A sweet-toothed coffee consumer has lodged a putative class action
complaint alleging that Coffee-Mate Caramel Latte Powdered Coffee
Creamer shortchanges consumers by overstating its servings per
container. The lawsuit alleges that despite labeling stating the
product contains enough creamer for 140 cups of coffee at one
teaspoon per serving, the product actually contains closer to 107
teaspoons of creamer. The plaintiff complains she would have not
paid as much for the creamer had she known the actual amount
contained in the product. Based on these allegations, the complaint
asserts claims for violations of Illinois consumer protection
statutes, breach of warranties, negligent misrepresentation, and
fraud. The complaint seeks to certify a class of all Illinois
residents who purchased the product, as well as injunctive relief
and compensatory and punitive damages.
The suit comes the same day as a settlement resolving similar
allegations against Maxwell House (covered below). With allegations
like these, imbibing in the morning cup of joe comes with a new
peril: will they run out of creamer first, or coffee? And that,
readers, is the ultimate cliffhanger.
Consumer Sour on Lemon Snap Cookies
Rudy v. D F Stauffer Biscuit Company, No. 1:21-cv-03938 (N.D. Ill.
July 24, 2021).
When life hands you lemons, one bakery apparently does not use them
to make lemon snap cookies. Or at least that is the case according
to a new putative class action. Instead, the plaintiff claims that
the cookies are made with food coloring and natural and artificial
flavors to imitate the look and taste of lemons. In addition, the
plaintiff alleges that the lack of lemon ingredients deprives
cookie consumers of the health benefits associated with lemons.
This alleged realization apparently left a sour taste in the
plaintiff's mouth. The complaint seeks to certify an Illinois class
for violations of Illinois's consumer protection statute, breach of
warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.
Granola's Juiced Up Protein Content Deflates Consumers' Gainz
Goals
Brown v. Nature's Path Foods Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05132 (N.D. Cal.
July 2, 2021).
A group of consumers aren't realizing gains on leg
day—possibly—and they have found a target on which to project
their underperforming ire. They have filed suit against a granola
product line labeled "10g PROTEIN per serving with milk prepared
with ½ cup of skim milk" on the front but is lacking the percent
Daily Value declaration on the Nutrition Facts Panel. The
plaintiffs allege, however, that amino acid content testing
establishes that the granola products actually contain 3.87g
protein without milk and 7.87g protein with milk. When correcting
for digestibility, the complaint alleges the amount will be even
less. The label also is deceptive, according to the plaintiffs,
because no % DV for protein was included on the Nutrition Facts
Panel, as allegedly required by the FDA. The plaintiffs seek to
certify a California class of purchasers and a subclass of all
purchasers and assert violations of California law, fraud,
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Chocolate Is the New Vanilla
Rice v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream Inc., No. 1:21-cv-03814 (N.D. Ill.
July 18, 2021).
By now, our readers are used to seeing updates on the torrent of
vanilla litigation filed over the last few years. Well, it looks
like those cases have become a little bland. Vanilla even. Because
a number of new suits are starting to target chocolate products.
One such suit has been lodged against the maker of chocolate-dipped
ice cream bars. The plaintiffs allege that the ice cream bars claim
to be covered in chocolate when the ingredient lists reveal that
the chocolate in part is made of vegetable oils, a supposedly
cheaper substitute for cacao beans. The complaint claims that this
substitution makes the ice cream products' labels misleading and
that consumers shouldn't be forced to read the ingredients lists to
confirm whether the chocolates in these products are wholly derived
from cacao beans. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
Illinois consumers and brings claims for violations of Illinois's
consumer protection statute, breach of warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Consumer Claims Fruit "IN 100% JUICE" Is Not Worth the Squeeze
Stamelos v. Schnuck Markets Inc., No. 2122-CC08859 (St. Louis. Cir.
Ct. July 16, 2021).
A putative class action filed in Missouri state court claims that
Schnuck Markets' fruit bowls and cans are falsely advertised as
containing fruit "IN 100% FRUIT JUICE" because they mislead
consumers to believe that the juice is actually 100% juice with no
other added ingredients. According to the complaint, the fruit
juice also contains ascorbic acid and citric acid "in direct
contravention to its express representation" that the fruit is "IN
100% JUICE." Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts
putative class claims on behalf of all Missouri citizens who
purchased the fruit products. The complaint alleges claims for
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, breach of
express warranty, and unjust enrichment. The complaint also seeks
compensatory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.
A Sham Process or Legitimate Standards? Fair Trade Claims
Challenged
Austin v. Chobani LLC, No. 7:21-cv-05949 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2021).
A yogurt maker faces a putative class action alleging that its
"fair trade" representations on its products are misleading. The
plaintiffs challenge the defendant's third-party certification
through Fair Trade USA, citing reports documenting exploitation of
immigrant workers in the dairy industry throughout Upstate New
York. The complaint also describes various challenges to the Fair
Trade Certified Dairy standards as being a "sham process" and
"filled with 'loopholes that leave out the most at-risk workers on
dairy farms.'" The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of Florida
and New York purchasers and assert violations of New York and
Florida law, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach
of warranties.
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Procedural Posture: Denied in Part
No Fruit in Here? You've Guava Be Kiddin' Me, Say Consumers
Ruiz v. Celsius Holdings Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00128 (S.D. Cal. July
28, 2021).
As food manufacturers continue to challenge the reasonableness of
consumers' beliefs at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiffs
scored a recent victory in a case out of the Southern District of
California. The plaintiffs alleged they were misled into believing
the defendant's energy drink products contained real fruit based on
the products' names—e.g., "Sparkling Orange," "Peach Mango Green
Tea," and "Sparkling Strawberry Guava"—and the vignette on the
products' labels. Energized, the defendant punched back, arguing
that reasonable consumers would understand there is no fruit juice
in a drink advertised as 0 sugar and minimal calories and using
sucralose as its primary sweetener. The district court concluded
that the defendant's argument was a "factual assertion" that
depended on whether it is commonly known that it is not possible to
make a sugar-free, low-calorie drink that contains fruit. Which
raises the question, just how reasonable are reasonable consumers
after all?
Court Finds That Wine Drinker's Origin Claims Have Aged Well
Kay v. Copper Cane LLC, No. 3:20-cv-04068 (N.D. Cal. July 14,
2021).
A Napa Valley winemaker attempted to cork a consumer's suit
claiming that its labels mislead consumers into thinking its Elouan
pinot noir wines are made in Oregon. The labeling on the wine
describes the wine as an "Oregon Pinot Noir," referencing the
"coastal hills" of Oregon as an "ideal region to grow" the grapes
used for this type of wine, and includes a map of Oregon with
leaves denoting the locations of three well-known wine-growing
valleys in the state. The labels also contained the phrase "Purely
Oregon, Always Coastal."
The district court determined that whether the label's references
to Oregon growing regions and the grapes' purported coastal roots
were misleading presented a question of fact. While the winemaker
argued that its labels disclose that the wine is bottled in
California, the district court found that it was "too close a call"
to determine whether the disclosure was sufficient.
Procedural Posture: Granted
Consumers Flavor Allegations Cheesin' a Bit Too Much
Wallace v. Wise Foods Inc., No. 1:20-cv-06831 (S.D.N.Y. July 26,
2021).
A New York federal court has curdled at claims that chips labeled
"Cheddar & Sour Cream Flavored" are anything other than true.
Guided by a perennial flavor and vanilla suit monger, the plaintiff
filed suit, claiming that the defendant's chips are deceptively
labeled because they are not labeled as artificially flavored. The
plaintiff claimed that she read this omission to mean that the
products did not contain any artificial flavors, including
artificial diacetyl (which apparently mimics or bolsters the
"buttery aroma of sour cream").
The argument didn't pass the smell test. The district court found
that the chips are labeled as "Cheddar & Sour Cream Flavored,"
which "by all indications" is true. It observed that nothing in the
label states that the flavors are derived entirely from cheddar and
sour cream. In addition, the district court pasteurized the
plaintiff's claim that the defendant violated FDA regulations that
a label must disclose artificial flavors, observing that unilateral
reliance on purported violations of FDA regulations cannot provide
a foundation for a consumer protection claim.
SETTLEMENTS
Consumers Ready to Cash In on Breadcrumb Trans Fat Suit
Hawkins v. The Kroger Company, No. 3:15-cv-02320 (S.D. Cal.
July 2, 2021).
A certified class of consumers that purchased Kroger breadcrumbs
are primed to cash in after a California federal judge granted
preliminary approval of their settlement deal. The plaintiff filed
her initial lawsuit in 2015, alleging that the grocer's
breadcrumbs' labels falsely represented the amount of trans fats in
the products. The breadcrumbs featured labels reading "0g Trans
Fat" despite containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oil
(dubbed "PHO") as an ingredient and, consequently, "trace amounts"
of trans fat. The grocer toasted the plaintiff's first complaint,
but that win went moldy quick as the Ninth Circuit reversed and
remanded the case. On remand, it was the grocer's turn to feel the
heat, as its second motion to dismiss was denied and the district
court granted class certification in November 2020.
Now the parties appear ready to break bread after the plaintiff
filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement. The $800,000 settlement is set to dish out up to $17.50
for claims without documentation and up to $100 for claims with
documentation. But in order to shelve the matter for good, the
parties will have to answer a few additional questions from the
court. The judge wants some additional information about the
proposed payouts to the class as well as the $400,000 slated to be
awarded in attorneys' fees, a number well above the traditional
benchmark of 25% of the settlement fund.
Consumers Brew Final Settlement Approval in Coffee Serving Suit
Ferron v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 0:20-cv-62136 (S.D. Fla. July
13, 2021).
The puns seem to be catching on in the food and beverage space.
This month, a Florida federal district court found that "after
careful consideration," consumers' settlement deal with Kraft Heinz
to resolve claims over the purported mislabeling of the amount of
ground coffee in its Maxwell House and Yuban brands coffee was
"good to the last drop." The price tag on this deal, $16 million,
is sure to perk up other coffee distributors that have been burned
by copycat lawsuits over the last year.
The deal is set to scoop out $0.80 per unit and up to $25 per
household with proof of purchases for either coffee brand. Under
the settlement, the defendant has also agreed to remove or revise
its challenged labeling to make its upper and lower limits of the
serving ranges correspond to the number of cups of coffee that can
actually be brewed when following the labels' directions. Class
counsel will be awarded nearly $4 million for its part in poring
through the litigation, which included a substantial, months-long
pre-suit investigation to determine the actual amount of coffee in
the challenged products.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
LANNETT COMPANY: Utesch Suit Transferred to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Utesch, individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiff University of Puerto Rico
Retirement System v. Lannett Company, Inc., Arthur P. Bedrosian,
Martin P. Galvan, Case No. 16-cv-5932-WB, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
August 25, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-mc-01056-VAP-MRW to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Lannett Company -- https://www.lannett.com/ -- has been providing
high-quality, affordable generic pharmaceutical products for over
75 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian D Berg, Esq.
Takeo A Kellar, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER AND TWERSKY LLP
11622 El Camino Real Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 764-2580
Fax: (858) 792-3449
Email: iberg@aftlaw.com
tkellar@aftlaw.com
LEMONADE INC: Citchens Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Milton Citchens, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LEMONADE INC., Case No.
2021-CH-03578 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County
Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on Aug. 24, 2021, and
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04494.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act, through the use of the
Defendant's AI-powered insurance application. Specifically, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant "collects the facial geometry of
customers who use the App" and "publish a publicly available
retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying
biometric identifiers and biometric information" and "did not
inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their biometric
identifiers and/or biometric information were being collected,
stored, used and disseminated" and "systematically and
automatically disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated the
Plaintiff's and the Class's biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information without first obtaining the consent required." Based on
those allegations, the Plaintiff asserts three counts of alleged
violations of BIPA, in both his individual and representative
capacity.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 750-1265
Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
kschamberg@carlsonlynch.com
nlange@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
ncolella@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Esq.
Amy L. Lenz, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
Chicago, IL 60606-2841
Phone: (312) 416-6200
Email: bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com
alenz@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Joel Griswold, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2300
Orlando, FL 32801-3432
Phone: (407) 649-4088
Email: jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com
LEON & GEORGE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leon & George, Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Leon & George, Inc, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04979 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Leon & George -- https://www.leonandgeorge.com/ -- is a shop with a
curated selection of high-quality indoor plants, hand-selected and
potted in premium stoneware ceramics, delivery available
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
LINEAGE CELL: Ross Putative Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Ross v.
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0822.
On October 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
challenging the Asterias Biotherapeutics, Inc. Merger.
This action (captioned Ross v. Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 2019-0822) was filed in Delaware Chancery Court and
names Lineage, the Asterias board of directors, one member of
Lineage's board of directors, and certain stockholders of both
Lineage and Asterias as defendants.
The action was brought by a purported stockholder of Asterias, on
behalf of a putative class of Asterias stockholders, and asserts
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under
Delaware law.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the process leading
up to the Asterias Merger was conflicted, that the Asterias Merger
consideration was inadequate, and that the proxy statement filed by
Asterias with the Commission omitted certain material information,
which allegedly rendered the information disclosed materially
misleading.
The complaint seeks, among other things, that a class be certified,
the recovery of monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On
December 20, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
On February 10, 2020, the plaintiff filed an opposition.
Defendants filed their replies on March 13, 2020. On June 23, 2020,
a hearing on the motions to dismiss occurred.
On September 21, 2020, the Chancery Court denied the motion to
dismiss as to Lineage and certain members of the Asterias board of
directors, and it granted the motion to dismiss as to all other
defendants.
On October 30, 2020, the remaining defendants filed an answer to
the complaint.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lineage Cell Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company developing novel cell therapies for unmet medical needs.
The company's focus is to develop therapies for degenerative
retinal diseases, neurological conditions associated with
demyelination, and aiding the body in detecting and combating
cancer. The company is based in Carlsbad, California.
LIVE VENTURES: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Live Ventures Incorporated
("Live Ventures" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LIVE) and reminds
investors of the October 12, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Live Ventures
stock or options between December 28, 2016 and August 3, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/LIVE.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Live Ventures used an artificially low share count to boost its
earnings per share for fiscal year 2016 by 40%. In fact, the
Company's earnings for 2016 were just $6.33 per share. The same
year, the Company overstated pre-tax income including $915,500 in
"other income." Further, the Company's acquisition of
ApplianceSmart did not close in Q1 2017 and using an acquisition
date of December 30, 2017 did not follow GAAP. Between fiscal year
2016 and 2018, the Company's CEO received compensation that was 94%
higher than what was disclosed to investors. 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 Live Ventures, investors suffered damages.
On August 3, 2021, the SEC filed a complaint against Live Ventures,
its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer
alleging "multiple financial, disclosure, and reporting violations
related to inflated income and earnings per share, stock promotion
and secret trading, and undisclosed executive compensation."
Specifically, the SEC alleged that Live Ventures had recorded
income from a backdated contract, which increased pre-tax income
for fiscal 2016 by 20%, and understated its outstanding share
count, which overstated earnings per share by 40%.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $29.08, or 46%, to
close at $33.50 per share on August 4, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The stock price continued to decline $7.74, or 23%,
over the next four consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.76
per share on August 10, 2021.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Live Ventures's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
LOANPAL LLC: Brunson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Loanpal, LLC. The
case is styled as Jeremy Brunson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v.
Loanpal, LLC a California Limited Liability Company Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2021-0008344 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept.
3, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
GoodLeap, formerly Loanpal -- https://goodleap.com/ -- is a
California-based finance technology company that provides financing
options for the residential solar industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, ALC
28632 Roadside Dr, Ste 203
Agoura Hills, CA 91301-6015
Phone: (818) 293-5623
Fax: (888) 850-1310
Email: roman@OLFLA.com
LORAL SPACE: Pluviose and Butchko Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13,
2021, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the class
action suits initiated by Mcbreakley Pluviose and Diana Butchko,
respectively, have been voluntarily dismissed.
On June 21, 2021, Mcbreakley Pluviose filed a class action
complaint (Civil Action No. 2021-0541-LWW) in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against Loral, the Individual Defendants,
MHR Fund Management LLC and MHR Holdings LLC.
On July 13, 2021, Diana Butchko filed a class action complaint
(Civil Action No. 2021-0597-LWW) in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against the Class Action Defendants.
The Delaware Complaints alleged, among other things, that the
Transaction is substantively and procedurally unfair to Loral's
public stockholders. Each of the Delaware Complaints sought, among
other things, a judgment declaring that the Transaction violated
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "DGCL")
and that Loral's shareholder rights plan was unenforceable;
converting into non-voting shares of Telesat Corporation the shares
that Dr. Mark H. Rachesky and MHR receive in the Transaction in
exchange for their shares of Loral non-voting common stock; finding
the Individual Defendants, and Dr. Rachesky and MHR as controlling
stockholders, liable for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiff and the class; enjoining the Loral stockholder vote on
the Transaction unless and until it is subject to a vote under DGCL
Section 203; and awarding to plaintiff and the class, damages,
together with pre-and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses and
disbursements of the action, including all reasonable attorneys',
accountants' and experts' fees, and such other relief as the court
deems just and equitable.
On July 15, 2021, plaintiffs in the above-described Delaware
lawsuits, with court approval, voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuits.
New York-based Loral Space & Communications Inc. together with its
subsidiaries is a leading satellite communications company with
substantial activities in satellite manufacturing and investments
in satellite-based communications services. The Company was formed
on June 24, 2005, to succeed to the business conducted by its
registrant, Loral Space & Communications Ltd., which emerged from
Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy laws on Nov. 21, 2005.
LUNDQUIST CONSULTING: Petro Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Robert V. Petro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LUNDQUIST CONSULTING INC., Case
No. GD-21-008445, was removed from the Allegheny County to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Sept. 3,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01187-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Lundquist Consulting Inc. (LCI) -- https://www.lciinc.com/ --
automates expensive bankruptcy processes with the industry's best
data, technology-driven solutions, and expert services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP, LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Phone: (412) 223-5740
Fax: (412) 626-7101
Email: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
- and -
Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
MOYNIHAN LAW, P.C.
2 Chatham Center, Suite 230
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 889-8535
Fax: (800) 997-8192
Email: mark@moynihanlaw.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Brit J. Suttell, Esq.
BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
10 Beatty Road, Suite 200
Media, PA 19063
Phone: (484) 999-4232
Email: britjsuttell@bn-lawyers.com
MEREDITH CORPORATION: Duda Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meredith Corporation.
The case is styled as Diana Duda, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-04531 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 24, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- is an American
media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
NICK LARRY LAW LLC
8 S Michigan Ave, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone (773) 694-4669
Email: nick@nicklarry.law
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gutnick Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Menachem Gutnick, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Case No. 9:21-cv-81492-RS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 24,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MINNESOTA: Trooper Testifies in George Floyd Protest Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Keith, writing Yahoo!, reports that during testimony given
on July 28 to the US District Court of Minnesota, Major Joseph
Dwyer of the Minnesota State Patrol said that "a vast majority of
the agency" manually purged their emails and text messages days
after being served with a lawsuit over their response to protests
over George Floyd's death in May 2020, according to court
documents.
Dwyer, who was at the protests and served as commander of the
troopers' mobile response team, is one of many witnesses involved
in a class-action lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union
of Minnesota filed in June 2020 on behalf of journalists who were
targeted and attacked while covering the protests.
News of the testimony came out when the ACLU-MN filed a brief with
US District Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright on the case.
"The impact of this purge is compounded by the fact that during the
protests Troopers were either directed not to complete use of force
reports or told that such reports were not required," the ACLU-MN
said. "The absence of both contemporaneous communications and
documentation makes it nearly impossible to track the State
Patrol's behavior, apparently by design."
Dwyer testified that he was aware of current litigation when he and
other troopers purged their e-mail inboxes and text messages. He
also testified that not a single use of force report about the
protests was completed, according to court documents.
Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety John Harrington testified
that no trooper had been disciplined for arresting, using force
against, or using chemical weapons against a journalist. Wright
said that "virtually nothing has been done to hold anyone
accountable for the misconduct" for violating the constitutional
rights of journalists during the protests.
Witnesses also confirmed to Wright that State Troopers concocted
false reports to justify the arrest, assault, and use of
less-lethal weapons against journalists, and ignored the governor's
order exempting journalists from curfew restrictions. [GN]
MISSOURI: AG to Sue K-12 Public Schools Over Mask Mandate
---------------------------------------------------------
Alisa Nelson, writing for Missourinet, reports that State Attorney
General Eric Schmitt is suing Columbia Public Schools and any
Missouri K-12 public school requiring students and staff to wear
masks. Schmitt, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, says a mask
mandate "flies in the face of science, especially given children's
low risk of severe illness and death and their low risk of
transmission."
He says more than 50 school districts have initiated masking rules.
Schmitt argues that parents and families should be the ones to
decide whether children should wear masks to school to help prevent
the spread of COVID-19.
Dr. Kristin Sohl, who serves as president of the Missouri Chapter
of the American Academy of Pediatrics, says much has changed with
the virus compared to a year ago.
"To set the record straight, the Delta variant is effecting kids,"
she says. "It is true that last fall and into the winter, kids were
definitely not as impacted as adults. But now they are. And of
course, the numbers are smaller because we don't have as many
children in our population as we do adults. About 11% of people
with COVID-19 are children and that is much higher than it was this
time last year. We also have many more children in our hospitals.
Our hospitals are full and there are children in our ICUs who are
very sick."
Sohl supports local leaders making decisions along with the health
experts in their communities.
"We want to make sure the surfaces and the environments that our
kids are in are as healthy as they possibly can be so that we are
putting in more and more layers around them. It's not about control
and it's really not even about a parent's choice. What this is
about is the fact that you have a public health, really, crisis and
every single person who is infected or has COVID-19, whether they
are symptomatic, whether they are in the hospital, whatever is
going on, that is a domino effect into the classroom," Sohl says.
"So right now, that means we have to do some things that we don't
love. I don't love wearing a mask either and yet that's what I do
because I care about my community and I care about myself."
She encourages Missourians to talk to a healthcare expert they
trust.
"We have physicians and health care experts who do spend their
entire lives understanding the body and how the body reacts to
these types of threats. At some point, we do have to recognize
there is a knowledge base there and how can we work with that
rather than against that," says Sohl. "If we had a major belly pain
and it ended up being our appendix was infected and needed to come
out, nobody is going to stand there and argue for days and say,
'You don't know what you are talking' and things like that. We'd
say, 'Alright doc, please take it out. It hurts.' And then it's
better."
Melissa Randol, executive director of the Missouri School Boards'
Association, questions the attorney general's decision and data he
is referring to.
"I'm kind of curious why he sued Columbia and did that reverse
class action," says Randol. "Why didn't he ask for emergency
injunctive relief? If it's so, in his pleading, so dangerous for
children. I'm curious as to what his research is. The stuff that he
cited in his pleadings were from 2020 -- well before the Delta
variant and they weren't even based in the United States."
Randol says she is not advocating for mask requirements but instead
wants health experts to continue to have the opportunity to help
guide schools with their local safety measures.
Republicans have historically supported local control. Randol says
the lawsuit is a significant erosion of that tradition.
"The districts that have made the decisions to not mask, they did
that in conjunction with their local authorities -- both their
local health officials and private community members weighing the
variables that would impact that decision -- the high community
transmission if that's in play, or positivity rates. So, those
decisions are acceptable but those same decisions when they are
made to require masking are not acceptable," she says. "Both
decisions to mask or not mask are local control decisions. Both are
based on what the local health experts are sharing with our school
districts. So, I'm not sure how one is acceptable and the other one
isn't when they are both using those same metrics to determine what
is best for their children. They are not doing it in a vacuum. They
are not doing it in isolation." [GN]
MODLIN SLINSKY: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Modlin Slinsky, P.A. The case
is styled as Liuvys Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Modlin Slinsky, P.A., Case No.
2:21-cv-00631-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., Aug. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Modlin Slinsky, P.A. -- http://lssmlaw.com/-- is a law firm
located in Sunrise, Florida whose practice is solely devoted to the
collection of outstanding accounts debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
NAGATANIEN RS FOODS: Aparicio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Aparicio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
aggrieved employees v. NAGATANIEN RS FOODS, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1- 50, Inclusive, Case No.
21STCV31534 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, Cty., Aug. 25, 2021), is
brought against the Defendants for violating numerous wage and hour
laws with respect to the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees by
failing to provide accurate and itemized wages statements, payment
for all hours worked (including regular wages and overtime),
failure to provide a minimum wage lawful meal periods, lawful rest
periods, timely payment during employment, failure to reimburse for
expenses incurred during the course and scope of employment, and
payment upon separation of employment.
The complaint alleges that, on many occasions, the Plaintiff would
work more than 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week without
overtime pay. The Plaintiff would not receive all compensable work
time or their work time was illegally rounded. Similarly aggrieved
employees would be paid overtime at an illegally calculated rate.
The Defendant regularly did not have enough employees to provide
sufficient coverage to maintain their business operations so the
Plaintiff and similarly Aggrieved Employees could not take
complete, timely and uninterrupted meal and rest breaks, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a shipping and
receiving warehouse worker from April 1, 2020 to April 1, 2021.
NAGATANIEN RS FOODS, LLC, is a California Limited Liability Company
which, existing, doing business and employing individuals in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
May T. To, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS, PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., #202
Torrance, CA 90505
Phone: (424) 355-8535
Fax: (424) 355-8335
Email: Justin@caworklawyer.com
May@caworklawyer.com
NATIONAL VISION: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. FirstSight Vision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National Vision Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended July 3, 2021, that a settlement has been
reached in the purported class action suit filed against FirstSight
Vision Services, Inc., a company subsidiary.
The company's subsidiary, FirstSight Vision Services, Inc., is a
defendant in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California that alleges that
FirstSight participated in arrangements that caused the illegal
delivery of eye examinations and that FirstSight thereby violated,
among other laws, the corporate practice of optometry and the
unfair competition and false advertising laws of California.
The lawsuit was filed in 2013 and FirstSight was added as a
defendant in 2016.
In March 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss previously
filed by FirstSight and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit in April 2017. In July 2018, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, and reversed in
part, the district court's dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.
In October 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the district court, and, in November 2018, FirstSight filed a
motion to dismiss. On March 23, 2020, the district court granted
FirstSight's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On
April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
FirstSight filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
May 8, 2020.
On February 4, 2021, the district court granted FirstSight's motion
in part and denied it in part. FirstSight's answer to the remaining
claims was filed February 18, 2021.
The parties participated in mediation on July 6, 2021 and, in order
to avoid the burden and expense of litigation, agreed to a
settlement of all claims alleged by the named plaintiffs.
National Vision Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates
as an optical retailer primarily in the United States. The company
operates in two segments, Owned & Host and Legacy. National Vision
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Duluth,
Georgia.
NEW YORK CITY: Malcolm Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR MALCOLM, KARVEN
ALCINDOR, ANTHONY APONTE, SHIRLENE BLAIR, DERYCK CHARLES, LATIF
CORNELIUS, LANAE CURRY, JOSE DEJESUS, SHAKIYNA ESPINO, ROBERTO
FERNANDEZ, VLAJEMY FRANCOIS, CRYSTAL GARNETT, CHANTEL GOUVEIA,
APRIL HERNEY-KOSAKOWSKI, TAMELLE HILLIARD, YOLANDA HOLMES, MONIQUE
JOHNSON, KEYSHA LEWIS, CAROLYN MARAJ, HUZIRAN MOZEB, ZHIHUI PU,
DAVID RUDDOCK, MYRLINE ULYSSES, and BRICE WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09641-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying this action as a representative
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), on behalf of:
"all Assistant Deputy Wardens, Captains, and Correction
Officers employed by the City of New York
("NYC")/Department of Corrections ("DOC") at Rikers Island
at any time within the three year period immediately
preceding the filing of the initial complaint in this
action and up to the time certification is granted
("relevant time period");"
2. Requiring that NYC/DOC produce a computer-readable data
file containing the following for each potentially
similarly situated employee during the relevant time
period: name, last known mailing addresses, telephone
number, private/work email address(es), work location(s),
dates of employment, job title(s) held and date(s) on
which each title was held during the relevant time period
within 10 business days of this Court's order;
3. Approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
4. Directing the plaintiff's counsel to send via first class
mail and private email address said notice and consent
form to each collective member within 10 business days of
receipt of the data from NYC/DOC's counsel;
5. Directing NYC/DOC to send via work email address the
notice and consent form to the collective members within
10 business days after NYC/DOC's provision of the data in
(2);
6. Directing NYC/DOC to file an affidavit of compliance with
the email requirement within 10 days of its compliance
with same;
7. Setting a period of 60 days following the tenth day after
NYC/DOC provides the data for the collective members to
mail or email completed consent forms to Plaintiffs'
Counsel; and
8. Granting such other, further, or different relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DYt3fA
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul A. Pagano, Esq.
Moser Law Firm, P.C.
5 East Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
E-mail: paul.pagano@moserlawfirm.com
NVR INC: Jenkins Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NVR, Inc., et al. The
case is styled as Lori Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. NVR, Inc., NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc., Case
No. 2:21-cv-00495-RGD-DEM (E.D. Va., Sept. 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
NVR, Inc. -- http://www.nvrinc.com/-- operates in two business
segments: homebuilding and mortgage banking.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris Dewey Butler, III, Esq.
Zev Hillel Antell, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD PLLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 648-4848
Fax: (804) 648-6814
Email: harris@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
PARKING REIT: Magowski Settlement Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court granted final
approval of the settlement in the consolidated Arthur Magowski v.
The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al, class action suit.
On May 31, 2019, and June 27, 2019, two alleged stockholders filed
separate class action lawsuits alleging direct and derivative
claims against the Company, certain of the company's current and
former directors, MVP Realty Advisors, Vestin Realty Mortgage I,
and Vestin Realty Mortgage II in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, captioned Arthur Magowski v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al,
No. 24-C-19003125 (filed on May 31, 2019) (the "Magowski
Complaint") and Michelle Barene v. The Parking REIT, Inc., et. al,
No. 24-C-19003527 (filed on June 27, 2019) (the "Barene
Complaint").
The Magowski Complaint asserts purportedly direct claims under
Maryland law on behalf of all stockholders (other than the
defendants and persons or entities related to or affiliated with
any defendant) for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
arising from the Company's decision to internalize its advisory
function. In this Complaint, Plaintiff Magowski asserts that the
stockholders have allegedly been directly injured by the
internalization and related transactions.
The Barene Complaint asserts both direct and derivative claims
under Maryland law for breach of fiduciary duty arising from
substantially similar allegations as those contained in the
Magowski Complaint. The purportedly direct claims are asserted on
behalf of the same class of stockholder as the purportedly direct
claims in the Magowski Complaint, and the derivative claims in the
Barene Complaint are asserted on behalf of the Company.
On September 12 and 16, 2019, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the Magowski and Barene Complaints, respectively. The
Magowski and Barene Complaints seek, among other things, damages;
declaratory relief; equitable relief to reverse and enjoin the
internalization transaction; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses. Although the motions to dismiss were fully briefed, the
Court had not ruled on the motions when the parties informed the
Court of their settlement discussions and requested a stay of the
proceedings. Prior to the stay request, limited discovery was
conducted in these actions.
By Order dated March 11, 2021, the Court consolidated the Magowski
and Barene actions for all purposes.
The Company and the Board of Directors intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits if the parties cannot complete the
class-based settlement described below, which settlement must be
approved by the Court and would include dismissal of the Maryland
Actions and the SIPDA Revocable Trust (SIPDA) action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Federal
Action).
The Magowski Complaint also previewed that a stockholder demand
would be made on the Company's Board of Directors to take action
with respect to claims belonging to the Company for the alleged
injury to the Company.
On June 19, 2019, Magowski submitted a formal demand letter to the
Board asserting similar alleged wrongdoing as alleged in the
Magowski Complaint and demanding that the Board investigate the
alleged wrongdoing and take action to remedy the alleged injury to
the Company. The demand includes that claims be initiated against
the same defendants as are named in the Magowski Complaint. In
response to this stockholder demand letter, on July 16, 2019, the
Board established a demand review committee to investigate the
allegations of wrongdoing made in the letter and to make a
recommendation to the Board for a response to the letter. On
September 27, 2019, the Board replaced the demand review committee
with a special litigation committee of one director.
The special litigation committee was empowered, with the assistance
of independent counsel, to investigate the allegations of
wrongdoing made in the letter and make a final determination
regarding the response for the Company to the demand. In light of
the settlement effort discussed below, the work of the special
litigation committee has been suspended.
On November 20, 2020, the parties to the Maryland Actions executed
a Term Sheet setting forth the terms for a settlement in principle
to resolve the pending lawsuits.
On April 13, 2021, the parties, including the plaintiff in the
Federal Action, signed a stipulation of settlement for a
class-based settlement that provided, among other terms, for (1) a
payment of at least $2.5 million into a settlement fund; (2)
certain other forms of relief in connection with the Bombe
Transaction, including a tender offer by a Bombe affiliate for
approximately 15% of the outstanding common stock, the purchase of
certain shares of stock from the former Advisor for the benefit of
the class members, and the extinguishment of certain shares of
common stock issued to the former Advisor in connection with the
internalization in 2019; and (3) the dismissal of the Federal
Action and the Maryland Actions (the "Settlement").
The Settlement is contingent upon final approval by the Maryland
Circuit Court, and upon consummation of the Bombe Transaction.
On April 20, 2021, the Maryland Circuit Court preliminarily
approved the Settlement, allowing for notice to be given to the
class members of the Settlement, and scheduled a hearing on final
approval for July 16, 2021.
On July 16, 2021, the Maryland Circuit Court held the Settlement
Final Approval Hearing.
Notice had been given to the proposed class prior to that hearing,
and no objections had been made to the Settlement.
The Maryland Circuit Court allowed additional time for objections
by a small number of class member who may not have received notice
of the Settlement by mail, and that additional time also passed
with no objections having been made to the Settlement.
Accordingly, at the end of the day on July 23, 2021, the Maryland
Circuit Court entered the proposed Order and Final Judgment
approving the Settlement and its terms, including the release
terms, certifying a non-opt-out class of holders, current and
former, of the Company's common stock, making awards of attorneys'
fees and expenses to Plaintiffs' counsel and making contribution
awards to each of the named Plaintiffs in the Maryland Actions and
in the Federal Action, which amounts are paid from the Settlement
Funds as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement (available on the
Company's website under the Investor Relations tab), and dismissing
the Maryland Actions with prejudice on the merits as to the
Plaintiffs and all members of the certified class.
The terms of the Settlement remain to be implemented and are
subject to certain conditions, including the condition that the
Bombe Transaction be consummated, which has not yet occurred.
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
PARKING REIT: SIPDA Initiated Putative Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Parking REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the court in the
purported class action suit initiated by SIPDA Revocable Trust,
dismissed the suit.
On March 12, 2019, alleged stockholder SIPDA Revocable Trust filed
a purported class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, against the Company and certain
of its current and former directors.
SIPDA filed an Amended Complaint on October 11, 2019. The Amended
Complaint purports to assert class action claims on behalf of all
public shareholders of the Company and MVP I between August 11,
2017 and April 1, 2019 in connection with the (i) August 2017 proxy
statements filed with the SEC to obtain shareholder approval for
the merger of the Company and MVP I (the 2017 proxy statements),
and (ii) August 2018 proxy statement filed with the SEC to solicit
proxies for the election of certain directors (the 2018 proxy
statement).
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the 2017
proxy statements were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the alleged two major reasons for the merger and
certain charter amendments implemented in connection therewith were
(i) to facilitate the execution of an amended advisory agreement
that allegedly was designed to benefit Mr. Michael Shustek
financially in the event of an internalization and (ii) to give Mr.
Shustek the ability to cause the Company to internalize based on
terms set forth in the amended advisory agreement.
The Amended Complaint further alleges, among other things, that the
2018 proxy statement failed to disclose the Company's purported
plan to internalize its management function.
The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, (i) that all
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by disseminating proxy statements
that allegedly contain false and misleading statements or omit to
state material facts; (ii) that the director defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and (iii) that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under Maryland law to
the members of the class and to the Company.
The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages; declaratory relief; and the payment of reasonable
attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs and
expenses.
On June 13, 2019, the court granted SIPDA's motion for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff. The litigation is still at a preliminary stage.
On January 9, 2020, the Company and the director defendants moved
to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Upon being advised by the parties
that they are engaged in on-going, active settlement efforts, on
November 30, 2020, the court denied the pending motions to dismiss
without prejudice as moot and subject to refiling if the settlement
efforts are not successful.
The Company and the Board of Directors have reviewed the
allegations in the Amended Complaint and believe the claims
asserted against them in the Amended Complaint are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend this action if the parties cannot
complete the settlement described below in connection with the
Maryland Actions, which settlement if approved by the Court
includes dismissal of this Federal Action.
Pursuant to the Settlement in Arthur Magowski v. The Parking REIT,
Inc., et. al, No. 24-C-19003125, which includes resolution of the
action, on July 19, 2021, the parties filed an unopposed joint
motion of all parties for dismissal of the Action.
In light of the fact that no class has ever been certified in the
Federal Action, the Dismissal Motion requested entry of a proposed
Order dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice, subject to the
right of Plaintiff to set aside the dismissal and reopen the Action
in the event the effective date of the Settlement does not occur
within sixty (60) days of the Court's dismissal order.
On July 22, 2021, the Court entered the proposed Order and
dismissed the Federal Action with prejudice, subject to the
dismissal being set aside and the Action reopened if the effective
date of the Settlement does not occur within sixty (60) days.
The sixty-day period runs on September 20, 2021, although the
parties may request an extension of that time period for good cause
shown.
The Parking REIT, Inc., formerly known as MVP REIT II, Inc., is a
Maryland corporation formed on May 4, 2015 and has elected to be
taxed, and has operated in a manner that will allow the Company to
qualify as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for U.S. federal
income tax purposes beginning with the taxable year ended December
31, 2017; therefore, the Company intends to continue operating as a
REIT for the taxable year ended December 31, 2019. The company is
based in Las Vegas, Nevada.
PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend
class action suits related to Zantac.
A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various
federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various
types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer,
purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac.
The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants
that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has
not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the
product. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.
In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation have filed against
Pfizer and many other defendants a master personal injury
complaint, a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging,
among other things, claims under consumer protection statutes of
all 50 states, and a medical monitoring complaint seeking to
certify medical monitoring classes under the laws of 13 states.
Plaintiffs previously had filed a consolidated third-party payor
class action complaint alleging violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute and seeking
reimbursement for payments made for the prescription version of
Zantac, but the Multi-District Litigation court dismissed that
complaint; Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In addition, (i) Pfizer has received service of two Canadian class
action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic
loss, allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of Zantac in
Canada; and (ii) the State of New Mexico and the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore separately filed civil actions against Pfizer
and many other defendants in state court, alleging various state
statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants'
alleged sale of Zantac in those jurisdictions.
In April 2021, a Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding was
created in the Superior Court of California in Alameda County to
coordinate personal injury actions against Pfizer and other
defendants filed in California state court.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend
itself from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor.
Beginning in 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were
filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer,
certain Pfizer affiliates, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy and
certain Ranbaxy affiliates.
The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent
nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons
or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of
the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March
2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct (the Class Period).
The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in
violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the
2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain
patent litigation involving Lipitor and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a
license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets
beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the
procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor.
Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on
behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for
Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the
Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed
against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among
others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that
are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief
sought in the purported class actions described above.
These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with
prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and
November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the
claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs.
All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing
their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.
In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the
order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to
amend their complaint to the Court of Appeals. In 2017, the Court
of Appeals reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the
claims to the District Court.
Also, in 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West
Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that
asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West
Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar
to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class
actions described.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Court Dismisses EpiPen Direct Purchaser Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the District Court granted
Pfizer's motion to dismiss the direct purchaser complaint without
prejudice in the antitrust class suits related to EpiPen.
Beginning in 2017, purported class actions were filed in various
federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer,
and/or its affiliates King Pharmaceuticals LLC and Meridian Medical
Technologies, Inc., and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan
N.V., and Mylan former Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch.
The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide
classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of
the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct.
In 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and the Mylan
entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct
purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the
defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit).
Plaintiffs in these actions generally allege, against Pfizer and/or
its affiliates, that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of
patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic
EpiPen in violation of federal and various state antitrust laws. At
least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO).
Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to
conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates
regarding EpiPen.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen
since 2011. In 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020
Lawsuit, were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in
a Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan
and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not
parties.
In July 2021, Pfizer and plaintiffs filed a stipulation of
settlement to resolve the Multi-District Litigation for $345
million.
The settlement is subject to court approval, and the payment is
being made in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement. Separately, with respect to the 2020 Lawsuit, in July
2021, the District Court granted Pfizer's motion to dismiss the
direct purchaser complaint, without prejudice.
In July 2020, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of indirect purchasers.
Plaintiff represents a putative U.S. nationwide class of persons or
entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of
certain refill or replacement EpiPens since 2010.
Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer and Meridian misrepresented the
shelf-life and expiration date of EpiPen, in violation of the
federal RICO statute.
Plaintiff seeks treble damages for alleged unnecessary replacement
or refill purchases of EpiPens by members of the putative class.
Pfizer and plaintiff reached an agreement to settle the action on
terms not material to Pfizer, and in July 2021, filed a joint
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the parties in the consolidated
class action suit related to Array BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma
program reached an agreement in principle to resolve the suit.
In 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Array,
which the company acquired in 2019 and is the company's wholly
owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers violated
federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures
made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant melanoma
program.
In 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single proceeding.
In March 2021, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the litigation on terms not material to Pfizer, which is
subject to final Court approval.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that Wyeth Holdings Corporation and its
affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit related to
Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor.
Beginning in 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were
filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of
the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR.
The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a
class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who
directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for
the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the
defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceased.
The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of
federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008.
All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
In 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims.
In 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to
all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct
purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed
the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the
District Court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare
products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various
therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology,
inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica,
Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi,
Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto
AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Sept. 5 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.
PLL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19376&wire=1
ARDX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ardelyx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19376&wire=1
LIVE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?prid=19376&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ:PLL)
PLL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 16, 2018 -
July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/piedmont-lithium-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19376&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Piedmont
Lithium Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Piedmont has not, and would
not, follow its stated steps or timeline to secure all proper and
necessary permits; (2) Piedmont failed to inform relevant people
and governmental authorities of its actual plans; (3) Piedmont
failed to file proper applications with relevant governmental
authorities (including state and local authorities); (4) Piedmont
and its lithium business does not have "strong local government
support"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Ardelyx, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARDX)
ARDX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 6, 2020 -
July 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ardelyx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=19376&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ardelyx,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: 1) the Company overstated the likelihood
that tenapanor would be approved by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"); and 2) 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.
Live Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ:LIVE)
LIVE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 28,
2016 - August 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 12, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form?prid=19376&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Live
Ventures Incorporated made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: 1) Live's earnings per
share for FY 2016 was actually only $6.33 per share; (2) the
Company used an artificially low share count to boost the earnings
per share by 40%; (3) Live had overstated pretax income for fiscal
2016 by 20% by including $915,500 of "other income" related to
certain amendments that were not negotiated until after the close
of the fiscal year; (4) Live's acquisition of ApplianceSmart did
not close during first quarter 2017; (5) using December 30, 2017 as
the "acquisition date" and recognizing income therefrom did not
conform to generally accepted accounting principles; (6) by falsely
stating that the acquisition closed during the quarter, Live
recognized bargain purchase gain, which enabled the Company to
report positive net income in what would otherwise have been an
unprofitable quarter; (7) between fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2018,
Live's CEO received approximately 94% more in compensation than was
disclosed to investors; and (8) 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.
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]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaint by Sept. 21
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the lead plaintiffs
in the two putative class action complaints against the company
will be required to file a consolidated amended complaint on or
before September 21, 2021.
Beginning on or about May 11, 2021, two putative class action
complaints were filed against the company (PCT), certain senior
members of management and others, asserting violations of federal
securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
The complaints generally allege that the applicable defendants made
false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public
filings regarding the Technology, PCT's business and PCT's
prospects.
The first putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by William C.
Theodore against PCT and certain senior members of management.
The second putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida by David
Tennenbaum against PCT, certain senior members of management and
others.
The plaintiffs in the Lawsuits seek to represent a class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PCT's securities
between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021.
The plaintiffs in the Tennenbaum Lawsuit also seek to represent a
class of all holders of ROCH CH Acquisition I Co. securities
entitled to participate in the March 16, 2021 shareholder vote on
the Business Combination.
The complaints seek certification of the alleged class and
compensatory damages. The Theodore Lawsuit also seeks punitive
damages.
The complaints rely on information included in a research report
published by Hindenburg Research LLC. The time for the applicable
defendants to answer, move or otherwise respond has not yet been
scheduled.
On July 14, 2021, the court granted a motion to consolidate the
Lawsuits and on July 26, 2021, Tennenbaum filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice.
On August 5, 2021, the Court entered an order identifying the
Ciecko Brothers as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and Pomerantz LLP as Lead
Counsel.
The Lead Plaintiffs will be required to file a consolidated amended
complaint on or before September 21, 2021.
Defendants will be required to answer or otherwise plead within 45
days following the filing of the Lead Plaintiffs' consolidated
amended complaint. PCT and the individual defendants constituting
senior members of management intend to vigorously defend the
Lawsuits.
PureCycle said, "Given the stage of the litigation, PCT cannot
reasonably estimate at this time whether there will be any loss, or
if there is a loss, the possible range of loss, that may arise from
the unresolved Lawsuits."
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. provides recycling services. The
Company develops patented recycling process which separates color,
odor, and contaminants from plastic waste feedstock to transform it
into ultra-pure recycled polypropylene. PureCycle Technologies
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Orlando,
Florida.
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red River Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 13, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action suit entitled, Aeron Averette v.
Red River Bancshares.
The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares, filed on August
28, 2020, in the 19th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana.
The lawsuit alleges the Bank wrongfully imposed multiple
non-sufficient funds fees on what the plaintiff describes as a
single item presented for payment, allegedly resulting in the Bank
breaching its customer account agreement, abusing its rights, and
being unjustly enriched.
The plaintiff claims to represent a class consisting of all account
holders in Louisiana who incurred similar charges by the Bank
within the applicable prescriptive period. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, costs, fees, attorney's fees, and general and
equitable relief for herself and the purported class.
The Company and Bank deny the allegations and are vigorously
defending this matter. The Bank filed an exception of no cause of
action in District Court as to the three grounds alleged by the
plaintiff.
On May 10, 2021, the 19th Judicial District Court ruled in the
Bank's favor, but allowed the plaintiff time to amend her petition
to state a cause of action. The plaintiff filed an amended petition
on June 15, 2021. The amended petition does not allege new causes
of action against the Bank. The Bank is preparing to file another
exception of no cause of action as to the grounds again alleged by
the plaintiff.
Red River said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, we cannot determine
the probability of a materially adverse result or reasonably
estimate the potential exposure, if any."
Red River Bancshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for Red
River Bank, a Louisiana state-chartered bank established in 1999
that provides a fully integrated suite of banking products and
services tailored to the needs of its commercial and retail
customers. Red River Bank operates from a network of 25 banking
centers throughout Louisiana and one combined loan and deposit
production office in Lafayette, Louisiana.
RELIANCE FIRST: Gillam Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Gillam, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Reliance First Capital, LLC, a New York company, Case
No. 2:21-cv-04774-JMA-JMW (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 24, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant to stop the Defendant from violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing telemarketing calls
without consent to consumers who registered their phone numbers on
the National Do Not Call registry ("DNC").
The Defendant engages in telemarketing to solicit business from
consumers who have never provided consent to the Defendant to call
them. In cold calling the consumers, the Defendant places multiple
unsolicited telemarketing calls to phone numbers that are
registered on the National DNC, such as the Plaintiff's phone
number. Numerous consumers have posted complaints about receiving
unwanted solicitation calls from the Defendant, including calls to
phone numbers registered on the National DNC, like the Plaintiff.
In response to these unwanted calls, the Plaintiff files this
lawsuit seeking injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease
from violating the TCPA, as well as an award of statutory damages
to the members of the Class and costs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Adam Gillam is a resident of Elwood, Indiana.
Reliance First Capital sells home loans and refinancing plans to
consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A.
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (877) 333-9427
Email: law@stefancoleman.com
- and -
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
RENOVACARE INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of September 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges RenovaCare, Inc. (OTC:RCAR) 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: Aug. 14, 2017 - May 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Sept. 14, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/RCAR
Contact An Attorney Now: RCAR@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
RenovaCare, Inc. (RCAR) Securities Fraud Class Action:
The case arises from an alleged fraudulent promotional scheme
orchestrated by RenovaCare's controlling shareholder and Chairman,
Harmel Rayat ("Rayat"), designed to artificially inflate company's
stock price.
Between July 2017 and Jan. 2018, RenovaCare and Rayat allegedly
solicited StreetAuthority, LLC ("StreetAuthority"), a publishing
company, to run a promotion. Rayat allegedly worked closely with
StreetAuthority on the promotion, including providing false
information to StreetAuthority regarding the efficacy of
RenovaCare's experimental burn-wound healing medical device called
the "SkinGun," editing StreetAuthority's promotional materials,
advising StreetAuthority on how to distribute the promotion to
enhance its effectiveness, and arranged to pay StreetAuthority for
the promotion using RenovaCare's funds that were routed through
third parties.
In addition, when the OTC Markets inquired about the promotional
activities in Jan. 2018, RenovaCare and Rayat issued a materially
false and misleading press release claiming that no director,
officer, or controlling shareholder had any involvement in the
purported third party's promotional materials.
The truth emerged on May 28, 2021, when the SEC sued RenovaCare and
Rayat, alleging their active participation in the StreetAuthority
promotional scheme.
This news sent the price of RenovaCare shares sharply lower.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving RenovaCare and
Rayat engaged in and concealed an illegal stock promotion scheme,"
said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.
If you invested in RenovaCare 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
RenovaCare 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 RCAR@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]
ROOT INC: Ohio Purported Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Root, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the purported class action suit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(Case No. 2:21-cv-01301), has been voluntarily dismissed on May 12,
2021.
On March 25, 2021, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company, certain of its current officers and directors,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital
Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01301) on
behalf of certain Root shareholders.
This matter was voluntarily dismissed on May 12, 2021.
Root, Inc. is a technology company revolutionizing personal
insurance with a pricing model based upon fairness and a modern
customer experience. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio.
ROOT INC: Shareholders Purported Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Root, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01197) on behalf of
certain Root shareholders.
On March 19, 2021, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01197) on behalf of certain Root
shareholders.
The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, in connection with and following the
Company's initial public offering. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages.
The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, the company
is unable to predict the outcome and the company cannot estimate
the likelihood or magnitude of the possible or potential loss
contingency.
Root, Inc. is a technology company revolutionizing personal
insurance with a pricing model based upon fairness and a modern
customer experience. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio.
RUSH PERSONNEL: Gutierrez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rush Personnel
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Eva Cano Gutierrez, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rush Personnel Services,
Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00306760-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Aug. 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
RUSH Personnel -- https://www.rush-personnel.com/ -- is Northern
California's premier staffing service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: (949) 379-6250
Fax: (949) 379-6251
Email: swong@aegislawfirm.com
SAN JUAN BASIN: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of San
Juan Basin Royalty Trust ("SJB" or the "Trust") (NYSE: SJT). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether SJB and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
On August 20, 2021, SJB announced that "it will not declare a
monthly cash distribution to the holders of its Units of beneficial
interest" due to "excess production costs for the June 2021
production month." The Trust disclosed that "true-ups that occurred
last month to the lease operating and capital cost categories for
the January 2021 through April 2021 production months resulting in
additional profits were made in error" and that "the June 2021
reporting month includes a reduction of $2,043,557.99 gross profits
($1,532,668.49 net to the Trust) due to corrections for those
periods."
On this news, SJB's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or 17.1%, to
close at $4.17 per share on August 20, 2021.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
SODEXO INC: Meza Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Meza, Jennifer Haag, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Sodexo, Inc., Case No.
21STCV26456, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept.
3, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-07128 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Sodexo -- https://www.sodexo.com/home.html -- is a French food
services and facilities management company headquartered in the
Paris suburb of Issy-les-Moulineaux.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
SPARTAN CONCRETE: Loctar Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John St. Rose, Monrose
Loctar, and Derrick James, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Spartan Concrete Products, LLC, and Warren
Mosler, Case No. 3:19-cv-00117-RAM-RM (D.V.I.), Mr. Loctar moves
the Court for the certification of a class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All persons who purchased RMC from Spartan Concrete
Products, LLC on St. Croix or Heavy Materials, LLC on St.
Thomas."
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, their co-
conspirators, their respective parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates; (2) those who purchased RMC at a price that was
negotiated and/or set prior to the Agreement.
The Class Period extends from the time Spartan and Heavy Materials
entered into the Requirement Supply Agreement and Assignment of
Lease through U.S. Concrete, Inc.'s acquisition of Heavy Materials
and the assets of Spartan.
Mr. Loctar also asks to be named Class Representative, and that his
counsel be named Class Counsel.
According to the complaint, the Spartan and non-party Heavy
Materials, LLC made an Agreement to divide the market for ready-mix
concrete ("RMC") in the U.S. Virgin Islands by geography in
violation of the law. Defendant Warren Mosler actively participated
in crafting that scheme.
Mr. Loctar purchased RMC from Spartan at an inflated price when the
unlawful Agreement was in effect. He and the others who purchased
RMC are entitled to recover the difference between what they
actually paid and what they would have paid but for the unlawful
Agreement, the lawsuit says.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zWXn7Z
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff Loctar is represented by:
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
C. Jacob Gower, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
jgower@burnscharest.com
- and -
J. Russell B. Pate, Esq.
THE PATE LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 370
Christiansted, V.I. 00821-0370
Telephone: (340) 777-7283
Facsimile: (888) 889-1132
E-mail: pate@sunlawvi.com
SunLawVI@gmail.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
dcharest@burnscharest.com
Counsel to the defendant Heavy Materials, LLC & former-defendant
U.S. Concrete Inc., are:
Scot F. McChain, Esq.
Mark W. Eckard, Esq.
McCHAIN HAMM ECKARD, LLP
5030 Anchor Way, Suite 13
Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820
E-mail: scot@mcchainlaw.com
meckard@usvi.law
- and -
Yohana Manning, Esq.
MANNING LEGAL SERVICES PC
53A Company St., 2 nd Floor
Christiansted, VI 00820
E-mail: yohana05@gmail.com
- and -
Ronald W. Breaux, Esq.
Benjamin Goodman, Esq.
HAYNES BOONE
2323 Victory Ave., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75219
E-mail: ron.breaux@haynesboone.com
benjamin.goodman@haynesboone.com
Counsel to defendant Spartan Concrete, LLC & former-defendant
Warren Mosler:
Christopher A. Kroblin, Esq.
Marjorie Whalen, Esq.
KELLERHALS FERBUSON PLLC
Royal Palms Professional Bldg.
9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101
St. Thomas, VI 00802-3602
E-mail: ckroblin@kellfer.com
mwhalen@kellfer.com
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 5
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: SPPI) between December 27, 2018 and August 5, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than November 1, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Spectrum Pharmaceuticals securities
during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Spectrum Pharmaceuticals class action,
go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2153.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than November 1, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, 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.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing facility of
ROLONTIS (eflapegrastim), a long-acting granulocyte
colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia,
maintained deficient controls and/or procedures; (2) the foregoing
deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would approve the ROLONTIS Biologics License
Application (the "ROLONTIS BLA") in its current form; (3) Spectrum
had therefore materially overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval
prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Spectrum Pharmaceuticals class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2153.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Faces Lawsuit Over Courthouse Health Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Andersen, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a current
official and former employee of a recently closed Springfield
courthouse have filed a class action lawsuit demanding that state
officials fix airflow problems and other environmental issues they
say have caused mold to fester in the building, endangering the
health of workers and the public.
The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 1 in Hampden Superior Court, is the
latest salvo in a long-running controversy over the Roderick L.
Ireland Courthouse.
The courthouse was closed Aug. 25 after Hampden Register of Deeds
Cheryl Coakley-Rivera, and Hampden District Attorney Anthony D.
Gulluni evacuated their staffs from the building over health
concerns. [GN]
STEREOTAXIS INC: Delaware Court Approves Barre Bid to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stereotaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that the Delaware Chancery
Court approves Richard Barre's motion to dismiss.
On April 29, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in
Delaware Chancery Court by Barre, a purported shareholder.
The defendants were the Company and its current directors. The
complaint alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the defendants
based on alleged disclosure deficiencies in the definitive proxy
statement filed by the Company on April 9, 2021 relative to the
vote at the Company's 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders that was
to be held on May 20, 2021 (the "2021 Stockholder Meeting") seeking
stockholder approval of issuance of shares under the Performance
Share Unit Award (the "CEO Performance Award") granted to David L.
Fischel, the Company's chief executive officer.
The complaint sought various remedies, including a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the vote at the 2021 Stockholder
Meeting to approve the issuance of shares for the CEO Performance
Award.
Following discussions with the plaintiff's counsel and the Delaware
Chancery Court, the parties agreed to an expedited discovery and
briefing schedule, with the Chancery Court scheduled to hear
arguments on the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on
May 18, 2021.
Although the Company believed that the claims were wholly without
merit and that no further disclosure was required to supplement the
Proxy Statement under applicable law, the Company filed a
supplement to the Proxy Statement on May 10, 2021 addressing the
alleged disclosure claims in order to eliminate the burden,
expense, and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing.
On May 12, 2021, the plaintiff withdrew the motion for a
preliminary injunction and voluntarily dismissed the motion,
reserving the right to apply for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.
The court approved the motion to dismiss on May 21, 2021.
Stereotaxis, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets robotic
systems and instruments for the treatment of abnormal heart rhythms
in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1990
and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
STUDENT LOAN: McKinley Files Suit in D. Maryland
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Student Loan Defense
Center LLC. The case is styled as Ryan McKinley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Student Loan Defense
Center LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, Case No.
8:21-cv-02275-GLS (D. Md., Sept. 3, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Student Loan Defense Center is an organization for information and
help for programs by the department of education and provides free
consultation, offers to buy ebook and offers no other
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (203) 653-3424
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
SUPER MICRO: Hessefort Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOGAN HESSEFORT,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00838-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class defined as:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Super Micro Computer, Inc.
between August 5, 2016 and January 30, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who suffered damages by
Defendants' alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act;"
2. appointing the Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and
3. appointing Robbins Geller as Class Counsel pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yUEn8D
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
Patton L. Johnson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
pjohnson@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Vincent F. Pitta, Esq.
PITTA LLP
120 Broadway, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Telephone: (212) 652-3890
Facsimile: (212) 652-3891
- and -
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cfox@labaton.com
TEMPEST THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Dahhan Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Tempest Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the purported class action suit entitled, Dahhan v. OvaScience,
Inc.
As a result of the merger with Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., the
Company is party to various litigation matters given Millendo's
role as successor to OvaScience, Inc.. OvaScience merged with
Millendo in 2018. Prior to the merger with Millendo, OvaScience was
sued in three matters one of which is Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc.
On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in Massachusetts Federal court (Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc.)
OvaScience and certain former officers of OvaScience alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Defendants have answered and the case is currently in discovery.
Tempest Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage oncology company
focused on leveraging a deep scientific understanding of cancer
biology and medicinal chemistry to develop and advance novel,
orally available therapies for the treatment of solid tumors. The
company is based in South San Francisco, California.
TENNESSEE: Judge Blocks Governor's Mask Mandate Opt-Out Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cathryn Stout, writing for Chalkbeat Tennessee, reports that a
federal judge has temporarily blocked Gov. Bill Lee's executive
order that allows parents to opt out of mask requirements in
Tennessee schools.
The governor's "opt-out provision interferes with plaintiffs'
ability to access services at their public schools through a
reasonable accommodation - required mask coverings," U.S. District
Judge Sheryl Lipman of Tennessee's Western District said on Sept. 3
in her statement.
Plaintiffs and Shelby County parents Brittany and Ryan Schwaigert,
and Emily Tremel filed a class action lawsuit against the governor
alleging that he violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
suit says his order allowing parents to circumvent a Shelby County
health ordinance requiring masks in schools in Memphis and its
suburbs jeopardizes the health and education of immunocompromised
children.
The temporary restraining order lasts until Sept. 17 or until
trumped by another action of the court. A preliminary hearing will
be held on Sept. 9, where the judge may rule to extend the ban or
reinstate the governor's order until a trial is conducted.
Attorney Brice Timmons, representing the plaintiffs, said that his
firm, Donati Law, has received calls from several concerned
parents.
"There are lots of parents of disabled children in Shelby County
getting organized," he said.
Jim Newsom, from the state's attorney general office, argued that
the lawsuit was premature because the parents had not exhausted the
appeals available through the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
The judge addressed that claim in her response, stating that the
plaintiffs sought "to protect their bodily health within a public
educational setting -- protection provided by the Shelby County
Health Department through the enforcement of a mask mandate."
In the state's initial response to the temporary restraining order
request, attorneys said, "The Court should not overlook the
incredible reach of plaintiffs' argument. If these claims do apply
to anyone in the employment context, and plaintiffs are right that
a mask mandate is required by the [Americans with Disabilities
Act], then nearly every employer and business open to the public
must also adopt a mandatory mask requirement for its employees and
patrons."
Although face coverings have proved to slow the spread of the
coronavirus, Lee, who is vaccinated and often seen wearing a mask,
has sent mixed messages about his views on masks in schools.
During an appearance on Fox News in May he said, "I don't think any
kid ought to wear a mask. If you want to follow the science, you
wouldn't have kids in a school wearing masks when kids do not get
sick from COVID."
But during an August press conference he switched positions,
saying, "If you want to protect your kid from the virus or from
quarantine, the best way to do that is to have your kid in school
with a mask."
The judge and lawyers for the plaintiffs referred to his comment in
August during the hearing, stating that the governor acknowledged
the positive public health implication of masking.
Universal masking has been a controversial issue in Tennessee and
many Republican led states where conservatives often argue that
mask mandates intrude on personal liberty. But what if one's
expression of personal liberty harms the well-being of another?
That's one of the questions that plaintiffs and their lawyers want
the courts to consider.
Tremel is the mother of an 11-year-old girl who attends Houston
Middle School in the Germantown Municipal School District in the
suburbs of Memphis. Tremel's daughter has a chromosomal abnormality
that causes episodic ataxia, which impairs movement and the nervous
system, and congenital nystagmus, which causes involuntary eye
movement.
Shortly after the governor allowed families to circumvent the
county mask requirement, Tremel's daughter was diagnosed with
COVID, and it has "disrupted" her school year, said Tremel.
The Schwaigerts are parents of a 13-year-old boy who attends West
Middle School in the Collierville Municipal School District, also
in the Memphis suburbs. Their son has autism and is
immunocompromised because of chemotherapy needed to manage tuberous
sclerosis complex, a genetic disorder that causes polycystic kidney
disease, epilepsy, and hypertension. Since the governor's order,
the teenager now goes to school 15 minutes late to avoid being in
the hall with unmasked children, missing part of his daily
instruction, his mother said.
On Sept. 1, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, a
Maryland-based nonprofit that promotes disability rights, filed a
brief in the case supporting the plaintiffs.
It said that the governor's order "obstructs access" to schools and
education and called the Tennessee lawsuit a case of national
importance.
It added that the final verdict will decide if "children with
disabilities have equal access to attend their public schools and
obtain an education alongside their non-disabled peers." [GN]
UNION BANK: Friedly Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARALYN FRIEDLY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
UNION BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-03105-JMG-CRZ (D.
Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying case as a collective action
consisting of:
"all hourly employees employed by Defendant within the
three years prior to the filing of Plaintiff's Original
Complaint and to approve notice to those current and
former employees;"
2. approving her proposed Notice and consent to join and
proposed method of distribution including mailing and
emailing;
3. directing the Defendant to produce the requested contact
information of each putative class member in an
electronically importable and malleable electronic format,
such as Excel, within seven days after this Court's Order
is entered;
4. allowing for an opt-in period of 90 days, to begin when
the Defendant produces the names and contact information
for the class members, in which class members may submit
Consents to Join this lawsuit as opt-in plaintiffs; and
5. awarding costs and a reasonable attorney's fee and grant
all other relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled,
whether specifically prayed for or not.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee for Union Bank and Trust
Company in Nebraska.
The Plaintiff brought this suit individually and on behalf of all
other current and certain former hourly employees who worked for
Defendant, who are similarly situated, to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A1eZzq
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark A. Fahleson, Esq.
Tara Tesmer Paulson, Esq.
Jennifer L. Ralph, Esq.
REMBOLT LUDTKE LLP
Landmark Centre
1128 Lincoln Mall, Suite 300
Lincoln, NE 68508
VIEW INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against View, Inc. ("View" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: VIEW) and reminds investors of the October 18,
2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in View stock or
options between November 30, 2020 and August 16, 2021 and would
like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner
Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/VIEW.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
that View had not properly accrued warranty costs related to its
product; (2) that there was a material weakness in View's internal
controls over accounting and financial reporting related to
warranty accrual; (3) that, as a result, the Company's financial
results for prior periods were misstated; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On August 16, 2021, after the market closed, View announced that it
"began an independent investigation concerning the adequacy of the
company's previously disclosed warranty accrual."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.26, or over 24%, to
close at $3.92 per share on August 17, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding View's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
WHITE PINES: Conditional Certification of Dancer Collective Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARDAE MOSLEY, an
individual, v. WHITE PINES, INC. dba L.A.'S NIGHT CLUB aka L.A.'S
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, a Virginia Corporation; KENNY EDWARDS, an
individual; LYNNANN EURICH, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through
3, Case No. 2:21-cv-00284-RCY-LRL (E.D. Va.), the plaintiffs
Chardae Mosley and Pa'tria Camilla Young ask the Court to enter an
order:
1. allowing conditional certification of a collective;
2. allowing notice of this action to be sent to dancers who
have performed at the defendants' club, White Pines, Inc.
dba L.A.'s Night Club aka L.A.'s Gentlemen's Club; and
3. allowing tolling of the statute of limitations during the
notice period and pending the resolution of Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Sept. 1,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2VwfL8O
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Suzanne S. Long, Esq.
David A.C. Long, Esq.
MEYER BALDWIN LONG & M OORE LLP
5600 Grove Avenue
Virginia Beach, VA 23226
Telephone: (804) 285-3888
Facsimile: (804) 285-7779
E-mail: slong@meyerbaldwin.com
davidaclong@gmail.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Shaun Michael Bennet, Esq.
Thomas M. Lucas, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
500 East Main Street, Suite 800
Norfolk, VA 23510
E-mail: shaun.bennett@jacksonlewis.com
thomas.lucas@jacksonlewis.com
WOODBRIDGE LIQUIDATION: Settlement Reached in Suit vs. Comerica
---------------------------------------------------------------
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 8, 2021,
that the company agreed to the terms of a settlement of two pending
actions against Comerica Bank.
On August 6, 2021 Woodbridge Liquidation Trust agreed to the terms
of a settlement of two pending actions against Comerica Bank. The
terms of the settlement, reached following negotiations with
Comerica Bank and the plaintiffs in a putative class action against
Comerica Bank in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, are the subject of a Settlement Agreement
among the plaintiffs, Comerica Bank, and the Trust.
Comerica Bank is the institution at which Woodbridge Group of
Companies, LLC and its affiliated debtors in bankruptcy maintained
all of their bank accounts, and these actions arise out of the
Debtors' former banking relationships with Comerica Bank.
The Trust was formed pursuant to the Debtors' bankruptcy plan, and
its purposes include the prosecution of causes of action vested in,
or acquired by, the Trust pursuant to the Plan, and the
distribution of cash, subject to reserves and expenses, to holders
of interests in the Trust.
The Settlement Agreement resolves two actions.
One of the actions, captioned In re Woodbridge Investments
Litigation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00103-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal.), is a
consolidated putative class action in District Court brought on
behalf of former noteholders and unitholders of the Debtors (the
"California Class Action").
The California Class Action is comprised of five separate lawsuits
filed between January 4, 2018 and April 26, 2018 and, as
consolidated, asserted claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and violations
of California's unfair competition law.
The Trust believes that it is the largest member of the putative
class in the California Class Action, as holder of approximately
60.9% of all claims against Comerica based on the claims
contributed to the Trust by former investors of the Debtors.
The other action resolved by the settlement, captioned Michael I.
Goldberg as trustee for the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust v.
Comerica Bank, Adv. Pro. No. 20-ap-50452-BLS (Bankr. D. Del.), is
an adversary proceeding pending in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, in which the Trust has asserted
claims against Comerica Bank for fraudulent transfers under the
California Civil Code (the "Delaware Adversary Action").
The Delaware Adversary Action also incorporates the claims asserted
against Comerica Bank in the California Class Action to the extent
that such claims may ultimately be determined to belong to the
Debtors' estates rather than to individual former noteholders and
unitholders.
Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the California Class
Action is required to be settled as a class action, subject to
District Court approval, on the basis of a class defined to consist
of (i) the Trust, as assignee of the claims of the holders of Net
Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) in Class 3
(Standard Note Claims, as defined in the Plan) and Class 5 (Unit
Claims, as defined in the Plan) of the Plan who are Contributing
Claimants (as defined in the Plan) and (ii) the holders of Net
Claims (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) in Class 3
(Standard Note Claims, as defined in the Plan) and Class 5 (Unit
Claims, as defined in the Plan) of the Plan who are not
Contributing Claimants (as defined in the Plan).
For purposes of distributions under the Settlement Agreement, the
holders of Net Claims who are not Contributing Claimants are deemed
to be the holders of such Net Claims as of February 15, 2019.
Under the Settlement Agreement, Comerica Bank has agreed to pay
(including through its insurers) an aggregate of $54.5 million,
consisting of $54.2 million to settle the California Class Action
(the "Class Payment") and $300,000 to settle the Delaware Adversary
Action (the "FT Payment").
The Class Payment is intended to provide recoveries to members of
the plaintiff class and to fund, in amounts to be determined by the
District Court, the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel in the
California Class Action, not to exceed 25% of the California Class
Action settlement payment, the costs of administering the
settlement, and certain incentive award for the class
representatives. Under the Settlement Agreement, Comerica Bank
(and certain related parties) is required to be released from all
claims advanced, or that could have been advanced, related to the
facts alleged in the California Class Action or the Delaware
Adversary Action.
The settlement amount is to be paid within ten business days of the
Settlement Effective Date (as defined in the Settlement Agreement).
The Net Class Consideration (defined as the Class Payment minus
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs) is required to be
distributed to class members as set forth in the Settlement
Agreement, resulting in a distribution to the Trust of
approximately 60.9% of the Net Class Consideration (corresponding
to the Trust's holding of approximately 60.9% of all claims against
Comerica based on the claims contributed to the Trust by former
investors of the Debtors). No costs of administration or incentive
award will be deducted from the Trust's share of the Net Class
Consideration. The Trust has agreed not to opt out of the
settlement with respect to these claims. The FT Payment is
required to be distributed to the Trust. The FT Payment is not
subject to reduction for any reason, including attorneys' fees,
costs of administration, or incentive awards.
The proposed settlement of the California Class Action is subject
to court approval, and settlement of the Delaware Adversary Action
is subject to settlement of the Class Action. Court approval and
payment of the proposed settlement amounts is expected by the first
quarter of calendar year 2022 but could be delayed by appeals or
other proceedings.
Additionally, Comerica has the right to terminate the settlement if
class members accounting for more than an agreed amount of claims
elect to opt out of the settlement.
Woodbridge Liquidation Trust and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Woodbridge Wind-Down Entity LLC were formed pursuant to the Plan.
The purpose of the Trust is to prosecute various causes of action
owned by the Trust, to litigate and resolve claims filed against
the Debtors, to pay allowed administrative and priority claims
against the Debtors (including professional fees), to receive cash
from certain sources and, in accordance with the Plan, to make
distributions of cash to Interestholders subject to the retention
of various reserves and after the payment of Trust expenses and
administrative and priority claims. The trust is based in Sherman
Oaks, California.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coty Inc. Faces Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Coty Inc. has been involved in numerous lawsuits involving product
liability issues, including allegations related to alleged asbestos
in its talc-based cosmetic products, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "While we believe that we have valid defenses
to these risks and have adopted, and/or will adopt, appropriate
risk management and compliance programs, such adoptions take time
and, given the global nature of our operations and many laws and
regulations to which we are subject, these legal and compliance
risks will continue to exist with respect to our business, and
additional legal proceedings and other contingencies, the outcome
and impact of which cannot be predicted with certainty, will arise
from time to time."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3kYF4ci
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Clean Energy Incurs $1MM Abatement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Global Clean Energy Holdings, Inc, during the six months ended June
30, 2021, has incurred a total of $1 million in asbestos abatement
costs related to the repurposing of the assets from a petroleum
based refinery to a biorefinery, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Global Clean Energy states, "The Company recognizes its asset
retirement obligation and environmental remediation liabilities in
accordance with ASC 410-30, and has estimated such liabilities as
of the date of the acquisition of the Bakersfield Biorefinery. It
is the Company's policy to accrue environmental and clean-up
related costs of a non-capital nature when it is both probable that
a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably
estimated. Environmental remediation liabilities represent the
current estimated costs to investigate and remediate contamination
at our properties. This estimate is based on internal and
third-party assessments of the extent of the contamination, the
selected remediation technology and review of applicable
environmental regulations, typically considering estimated
activities and costs for 20 years, and up to 30 years if a longer
period is believed reasonably necessary. Accruals for estimated
costs from environmental remediation obligations generally are
recognized no later than completion of the remedial feasibility
study and include, but are not limited to, costs to perform
remedial actions and costs of machinery and equipment that are
dedicated to the remedial actions and that do not have an
alternative use. Such accruals are adjusted as further information
develops or circumstances change. We discount environmental
remediation liabilities to their present value if payments are
fixed and determinable. However, as the timing and amount of these
costs were undeterminable as of June 30, 2021, these costs have not
been discounted.
"Expenditures for equipment necessary for environmental issues
relating to ongoing operations are capitalized. Changes in laws and
regulations and actual remediation expenses compared to historical
experience could significantly impact our results of operations and
financial position. We believe the estimates selected, in each
instance, represent our best estimate of future outcomes, but the
actual outcomes could differ from the estimates selected. At June
30 2021, accrued environmental remediation liability costs totaled
$21.1 million of which $1.3 million have been classified as current
liabilities."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3DxEcng
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Judge Declines to Stop J&J from Offloading Talc
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Spector and Maria Chutchian, writing for Reuters.com, reports
that a U.S. Judge declined to stop Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) from
taking steps to offload widespread Baby Powder liabilities from the
rest of its business, preserving the option for the healthcare
company to move thousands of claims from people who used its talc
products to a unit that would file for bankruptcy.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein denied a request
from plaintiffs' lawyers to block the move. Lawyers for cancer
victims wanted her to issue a restraining order against J&J as part
of her role overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings of one of the
company's former talc suppliers.
J&J is exploring a plan to move its liabilities from widespread
Baby Powder and other talc-related litigation into a newly created
business that would later seek bankruptcy protection, Reuters
previously reported. The company's talc products are currently
housed in a subsidiary called Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. read
more
"The court rightly denied the plaintiffs' motion aimed at
preventing J&J from engaging in legitimate business transactions,
in the event that it chooses to do so," said Diane Sullivan, a
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP lawyer representing J&J, in a
statement.
The legal skirmish was unusual in that plaintiffs' lawyers were
asking the judge to forbid J&J from taking steps the company's
lawyers said it had not yet decided whether to pursue. Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc has previously said it has "not decided on any
particular course of action in this litigation other than to
continue to defend the safety of talc and litigate these cases in
the tort system, as the pending trials demonstrate."
The judge is overseeing the bankruptcy case of Imerys Talc America,
which once supplied talc to J&J and filed for Chapter 11 court
protection amid mounting litigation. Imerys and J&J have since been
battling one another over whether J&J is required to cover the
former supplier's legal costs under indemnification agreements.
Plaintiffs' lawyers argued that allowing J&J to offload its talc
liabilities to a unit that would file for bankruptcy would harm
Imerys' reorganization.
The judge decided it would be improper as part of Imerys'
bankruptcy case for her to legally bar J&J from undertaking a
hypothetical future restructuring that might result in separating
the talc liabilities. She said Imerys could take legal action
against J&J should J&J decide to separate its talc liabilities in a
way Imerys deems harmful or unlawful.
J&J faces legal actions from tens of thousands of plaintiffs
alleging its Baby Powder and other talc products contained asbestos
and caused cancer. The plaintiffs include women suffering from
ovarian cancer and others battling mesothelioma.
J&J is considering using Texas' "divisive merger" law, which allows
a company to split into at least two entities, Reuters previously
reported. For J&J, that could create a new entity housing talc
liabilities that would then file for bankruptcy to halt
litigation.
The maneuver is known among legal experts as a Texas two-step
bankruptcy, a strategy other companies facing asbestos litigation
have used in recent years.
Should J&J proceed, plaintiffs who have not settled could find
themselves in protracted bankruptcy proceedings with a likely much
smaller company. Future payouts to plaintiffs would be dependent on
how J&J decides to fund the entity housing its talc liabilities.
A 2018 Reuters investigation found J&J knew for decades that
asbestos, a known carcinogen, lurked in its Baby Powder and other
cosmetic talc products. The company stopped selling Baby Powder in
the U.S. and Canada in May 2020, in part due to what it called
"misinformation" and "unfounded allegations" about the talc-based
product. J&J maintains its consumer talc products are safe and
confirmed through thousands of tests to be asbestos-free.
The blue-chip company, which boasts a market value exceeding $450
billion, faces legal actions from more than 30,000 plaintiffs
alleging its talc products were unsafe. In June, the U.S. Supreme
Court declined to hear J&J's appeal of a Missouri court ruling that
resulted in $2 billion of damages awarded to women alleging the
company's talc caused their ovarian cancer. read more
Separately, plaintiffs lawyers are seeking a similar restraining
order against J&J in a Missouri court. One of those lawyers, Andy
Birchfield, said in a statement that he and other lawyers would
study the Imerys ruling and continue attempts to prevent J&J from
using the Texas law to separate its talc liabilities and steer them
toward bankruptcy.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Land Newco Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Land Newco, Inc., a Company formed to effectuate the announced
transaction to spin-off Rexnord Corporation's Process & Motion
Control segment (PMC), is a defendant of multiple lawsuits (with
approximately 300 claimants) pending in state or federal court in
numerous jurisdictions relating to alleged personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in certain brakes and clutches
previously manufactured by PMC's Stearns division and/or its
predecessor owners, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Invensys and FMC, prior owners of the Stearns
business, have paid 100% of the costs to date related to the
Stearns lawsuits. Similarly, PMC's Prager business is the subject
of claims by multiple claimants alleging personal injuries due to
the alleged presence of asbestos in a product allegedly
manufactured by Prager. However, all these claims are currently on
the Texas Multi-district Litigation inactive docket, and PMC does
not believe that they will become active in the future. To date,
PMC's insurance providers have paid 100% of the costs related to
the Prager asbestos matters. PMC believes that the combination of
its insurance coverage and the Invensys indemnity obligations will
cover any future costs of these matters."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3BJJbQf
*********
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 ***