/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211012.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, October 12, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 198
Headlines
ABBVIE INC: Must face Class Action Over Humira Kickback Scheme
AETNA INC: Refuses to Cover Inpatient Autism Treatment, Suit Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit From Chinese Firms Over Fake Reviews
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Baker McKenzie Attorneys Discuss Ruling
ANNOVIS BIO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 18 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of November 23 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 23 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
APPHARVEST INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
BLACK HORSE: Blank Rome Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
BOB DEAN: Faces Suit Over Nursing Home's Deplorable Conditions
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Faces Class Action Over "Goof Proof" Plans
BOSTON BEER: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 15 Deadline
BOSTON BEER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 15 Deadline
BRISTOL-MYERS: Duplicative Class Actions Allowed to Proceed
BT GROUP: Consumers' Opt-Out Class Action Granted Certification
BT GROUP: GBP589MM Class Action Over Illegal Fees Can Proceed
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: December 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CARDINAL GROUP: Mint Urban Infinity Tenants File Class-Action
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of October 26 Deadline
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
CHINA EVERGRANDE: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
CINEFLIX MEDIA: Settles Workers' Class Action for $1 Million
CREATIVE CARE: Forster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DAVIDOS BRIDAL: Aul Slams Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Garcia Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Polanski Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI
EAGLE BANCORP: Jan. 20, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION: 3rd Circuit Vacates Certification Issues
EDWARD SLOAN: Faces Suit Over Allegedly 'Harassing' Debt Collection
EISAI CO: Class Action Over Belviq Cancer Risk Dismissed By Judge
ELEMENT SIX: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action in Israel Over Job Ads
FACEBOOK INC: Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
FRED MEYER: Littler Attorneys Discuss FCRA Class Action Ruling
GETSWIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Discloses Details of Proposed Settlement
GREENWICH LOGISTICS: Fazier Sues Over Unpaid Vacation Wages
GROUP HEALTH: Refuses to Cover Autism Treatment, Class Suit Says
HEALTHEX CORP: Croston Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
HYRECAR INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 26 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of November 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 29 Deadline
HYZON MOTORS: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 29 Deadline
IFINEX INC: RICO Class Action Lawsuit Pending in New York
IM SERVICES: Roberts Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
IRWIN NATURALS: Asaro Files Mislabeling Suit Over Health Supplement
J. M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cooking Spray
JUDSON ENTERPRISES: Houghton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
KIA AMERICA: Marvin Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
L7 COMMUNICATIONS: McKinney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LOANDEPOT INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of November 8 Deadline
LONGEVERON INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 12 Deadline
MAR Y SOL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2924: Judge to Consider Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Suits
MONARCH RECOVERY: Lespes FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
NANO-X IMAGING: McLaughlin Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
NEW BRUNSWICK: Restigouche Hospital Centre Class Action Certified
NEW YORK: Mayor Faces Class Action Over Vaccine Mandates
NOVO NORDISK: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action for $100MM
NURTURE INC: Albert Slams Toxic Substances in Baby Food
OMEROS CORPORATION: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Walsh Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 19 Deadline
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Sleep Therapy Machine Recall
POLARITYTE INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of November 23 Deadline
POLARITYTE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 23 Deadline
Q LINK WIRELESS: Fabrikant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
RANCHO MURIETA: Segismundo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RELIN GOLDSTEIN: Villalobos Suit Removed to E.D. New York
RMS FASHIONS: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ROSS STORES: Jan. 25, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SAN DIEGO HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
SARMIENTO CONSTRUCTION: Alfaro Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
SATA INTERNACIONAL: Cert. of Class Suit Over Delayed Flights Denied
SELECTQUOTE INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of October 15 Deadline
SOCLEAN INC: Turner Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
STATE FARM: Faces Suit Over Exclusion of Sales Tax in Insurance
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Settles Discrimination Class Suit for $3.7-Mil
TACONIC PLASTICS: Settles Class Suit Over Polluted Drinking Water
TAMAQUA TRANSFER: O'Donnell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
TAYLOR JAMES: Battle Files Suit in C.D. California
TENNESSEE: Illegally Jailed Minors Can Claim Part of Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Saved Text Messages
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Defective Brake Boosters Ongoing
TYCO FIRE: Oct. 22 Deadline Set to File Settlement Claim
UBS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Incorrect Tax Information Reporting
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Still Await Settlement Payout
VACA RESTAURANT: Alonzo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
VISA INC: Must Face "Swipe Fee" Antitrust Class Action
WATERDROP INC: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
WEIDNER PROPERTY: De La Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YALLA GROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 12 Deadline
[*] Class Action Funders Face Further Restrictions in Australia
[*] Class-Action Suit Over Allstate 401(k) Plan Can Go Forward
[*] NCR Accused of Siding with Banks in R60 Billion Class Action
[*] Winston & Strawn Discusses Restoring Justice for Workers Act
*********
ABBVIE INC: Must face Class Action Over Humira Kickback Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that AbbVie Inc.
must face a certified class action over its alleged scheme to
inflate its stock price by misleading the public about the role
kickbacks played in the success of its blockbuster arthritis drug
Humira, a federal judge in Chicago ruled on Sept. 27.
Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. conferred class action status on the
securities fraud case, which is moving forward in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit, filed in 2018, accuses the pharmaceutical giant of
sending its own nurses to "assist" prescribing physicians -- by
marketing the drug to them and downplaying its risks. [GN]
AETNA INC: Refuses to Cover Inpatient Autism Treatment, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Aetna Life Insurance Company has violated
federal law by refusing to cover inpatient treatment for certain
mental health disorders, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
According to the 23-page lawsuit, Aetna "treats mental health as
less important than physical health," and refused to reimburse the
plaintiff's costs for behavioral health services related to his
son's 2019 stay at a full-time, out-of-state residential treatment
facility to help stabilize his ASD. A key contention in the
complaint is Aetna's self-imposed credentialing requirements for
covered residential treatment facilities, which the plaintiff
alleges the insurer fails to apply with parity with respect to
medical/surgical facilities as required by federal law.
"In other words, Aetna requires special accreditations for all
residential facilities for mental health care but does not require
the same of analogous medical and surgical treatment facilities,"
the suit alleges. "Strikingly, similar accreditation is not
required of any other medical facilities under the Aetna Plan."
The suit claims Aetna denied the plaintiff's claim on the basis
that the facility to which his son was admitted, which the lawsuit
states is duly licensed by Utah to provide residential treatment
services to young male clients, "is not accredited" by the Joint
Commission, Committee on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities, American Osteopathic Association's Healthcare
Facilities Accreditation Program or the Council on Accreditation,
or credentialed by Aetna itself.
Aetna's coverage denial runs contrary to the federal Paul Wellstone
and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of
2008 (Parity Act), which requires that, when a group health plan
provides both medical and surgical benefits and mental health or
substance use disorder benefits, the plan or coverage will ensure
that the limitations applied to mental health or substance abuse
disorders are no more restrictive than the predominant limitations
applied to all covered medical and surgical benefits, and that
there are no separate treatment limitations applied only with
respect to mental health or substance abuse disorders.
From the complaint:
"The Parity Act's purpose was to end discrimination in the
provision of insurance coverage for mental health treatment, as
compared to medical and surgical services. While the Parity Act
does not require health care plans to cover mental health services,
if a plan chooses to cover mental health services, such coverage
must be provided 'at parity' with medical/surgical benefits."
Per the suit, the plaintiff's Aetna plan, as it pertains to the
treatment of mental health disorders, covers expenses that include
charges related to room and board at the semi-private room rate,
and other services and supplies during a covered party's stay in a
hospital, psychiatric hospital or residential treatment facility.
According to the complaint, Aetna, in denying certain coverage for
inpatient mental health treatment at certain facilities, has
imposed a set of internally developed criteria to determine which
residential facilities are covered that's "far more restrictive"
than the standard it applies when determining coverage for medical
and surgical services. The suit alleges Aetna does this "to
minimize the number of claims accepted and thereby maximiz[e]
Aetna's own profits."
The lawsuit looks to represent all persons covered under a
self-funded or fully insured Aetna health plan governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act who sought and were denied
coverage for all or a portion of residential treatment for mental
health disorders within the applicable statute of limitations, or
whose requests for coverage for all or a portion of residential
treatment for mental health disorders will be denied in the future.
[GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit From Chinese Firms Over Fake Reviews
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Meldner, writing for eSeller365, reports that seven Chinese
firms that sold products on the Amazon marketplace filed a
class-action lawsuit against the online retailer for continuing to
withhold funds after Amazon terminated their accounts between
December 2020 and March 2021.
The seven sellers were caught up in Amazon's efforts to crack down
on fake reviews that violated the company's Anti-Manipulation
Policy for Customer Reviews, which forbids marketplace sellers to
offer monetary incentives in exchange for positive reviews (fake
reviews).
Collectively, the group claims Amazon froze $568,913.72 in funds
that should be released to the companies as it has been at least 90
days since their accounts were terminated, and there is no
"reasonable needed to protect against the risk of any current or
potential liabilities."
The seven companies bringing this class-action lawsuit are:
SHENZEN SHILEZIYOU TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., d/b/a/ SOPOWNIC US
SHENZHEN AIWOLI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., d/b/a/ SLAOUWO
SHENZHEN SHIDE YIXUN E-COMMERCE CO. LTD., d/b/a/ DEYIXUN
SHENZHEN CHAOSHENG NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. d/b/a/ CSTECH US
SHENZHEN RUIKE E-COMMERCE CO., LTD., d/b/a/ RECOO DIRECT
SHENZHEN SHIMI YINGTONG AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CO., LTD., d/b/a/
ANGELBLISS
SHENZHEN TUDI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., d/b/a/ TUDI US
The seven Chinese firms claim that individually they are owed the
following amounts:
SOPOWNIC, $66,185.92
SLAOUWO, $121,100.61
DEYIXUN, $33,800.49
CSTECH, $19,627.03
RECOO, $236,700.00
ANGELBLISS, $30,591.10
TUDI, $60,908.57
This group of seven sellers appears to be a tiny number of Chinese
companies impacted by the Amazon crackdown on Fake Reviews.
In September, we wrote based on a Chinese media report, that at
least 3,000 Chinese brands from about 600 sellers had been impacted
by Amazon's efforts to clean up its marketplace.
In the same report, Shenzhen Youkeshu Technology Co. claimed Amazon
owed the company more than 130 million yuan (US$20 million). It
isn't clear if that was at the time of termination or at the time
of the report.
Shenzhen Youkeshu Technology Co. is not named as a plaintiff in
this class action lawsuit, but the company could benefit from a
favorable ruling if Amazon loses the case.
Meanwhile, the Chinese government is trying to help banned brands
rebuild their business without using Amazon after sellers were
kicked off the Amazon platform because they allegedly violated its
anti-manipulation policy.
For a long time now, the Chinese government has been promoting its
business plan, "Made in China, sold on Amazon," to entice more
companies to sell products directly to consumers globally on
Amazon.
However, after Amazon removed them off the marketplace, the
government stepped in to offer up to 3 million yuan ($412,000) to
help these companies build new online operations directly marketing
and selling their products to consumers.
If that scheme can succeed is still a big question because of
Amazon's dominant and trusted market position in the United States
and many other countries. It may not be that easy to recapture the
lost business when banned from one of the largest online retailers
in the world.
Let's face it, the products these Chinese "brands" sold were not
innovative or unique and often represented similar but affordable
versions of products sold by globally known brands.
Amazon's consumer-friendly policies and fast delivery through
Amazon FBA service gave these Chinese companies the opportunity to
build a business within a trusted ecosystem. That can't be easily
duplicated by simply going to another marketplace or building a
website.
It's hard to know if all these companies really needed the fake
reviews to grow their business or if they would have been just as
successful in the long term by selling their products without
them.
Running up the number of positive reviews quickly helped them gain
attention faster, and without a doubt, there were some very bad
products being sold solely based on the strength of fake positive
reviews.
And there are no interpretation issues about Amazon's policy, so it
is up to the sellers to ensure they are completely in agreement
with Amazon policies.
The plaintiffs in this case don't seem to defend their actions
regarding the fake reviews and instead focus on recovering monies
owed.
This class-action lawsuit is interesting reading, but has a bit of
a strange start recounting Jeff Bezo's flight into space and then
trying to connect the dots claiming Amazon withholding funds 'from
hundreds of thousands of Chinese individuals and businesses that
Amazon has banned from its marketplace" is somehow relevant or
contributed to his space adventure.
Back on earth, for many Chinese companies impacted by the
crackdown, the situation is existential as they are scrambling to
weigh options on how to get back on the marketplace, hoping the
Amazon arbitration and appeals processes will help them reopen
their seller accounts.
It's a bit curious that only seven companies are trying the legal
route, even if it is a class-action, and are basically just
requesting their funds to be unfrozen and paid.
That by itself seems to suggest there is a lot of confusion and
uncertainty by the banned companies on how best to proceed without
creating more damage to their businesses.
Some Chinese Sellers Banned by Amazon are Still Being Deceitful
However, some Chinese sellers appear very desperate or have given
up hope and are trying another deceitful approach by changing names
and attempting to sell the same products on Amazon again.
The Verge reported it found products from banned sellers on Amazon
that were sneaking past the company's safeguards.
"We recently spotted all three banned brands back on the Amazon
storefront under the flimsiest of disguises: Vava had changed its
name to "Vav," TaoTronics became "Taotronic," and RavPower was
simply "Rav."
The Verge showed screenshots and said Amazon removed the items once
they made them aware the banned companies returned to the platform
using slightly different names.
This problem is not going away and whether this class action
lawsuit will have any meaningful resolution, Amazon seems
determined to continue to clean up the marketplace.
As The Verge already uncovered, that is not easy. Amazon claimed
that it has removed well over 200 million fake reviews in 2020
alone.
The 28-page class-action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court
for the Northern District of California in September. [GN]
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Baker McKenzie Attorneys Discuss Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Zaslowsky, Esq., and Jacob M. Kaplan, Esq., of Baker
McKenzie, in an article for Lexology, report that plaintiff Mark
Donelson ("Donelson") was a high school graduate and an
inexperienced stock trader. Mark Sachse ("Sachse") was a
stockbroker and investment advisor at Ameriprise Financial
Services, Inc. ("Ameriprise") who, unbeknownst to Donelson, was a
disbarred attorney and the subject of multiple ethics complaints.
Sachse made oral representations to Donelson in signing an account
application at Ameriprise, which contained an arbitration
provision. After Donelson signed the application, Sachse mishandled
Donelson's investment account, including "misrepresenting the
account value, trading on margin when expressly instructed not to,
and misrepresenting reparations Ameriprise would make for problems
with Donelson's account."
Donelson filed suit against Sachse, Ameriprise, and individual
Ameriprise officers (collectively "Defendants"), alleging
violations of federal securities law and breach of fiduciary duty.
Donelson also sought to represent other Sachse and Ameriprise
clients in a class action, alleging they experienced similar
wrongs.
The district court denied Defendants' motion to strike the
class-action allegations and to compel arbitration. On appeal, the
Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded for entry of an order striking
the class-action allegations and compelling arbitration.
The Eighth Circuit first addressed Donelson's arguments that the
court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal or,
alternatively, that the court lacked jurisdiction over the denial
of the motion to strike the class-action allegations. The Eighth
Circuit found that the Federal Arbitration Act (the "FAA")
conferred jurisdiction to review the denial of motions to compel
arbitration. The court noted that section 16 of the FAA provides
that "[a]n appeal may be taken from . . . an order . . . denying a
petition under section 4 of [the FAA] to order arbitration to
proceed." The court also found that it had appellate jurisdiction
to review the trial court's entire order under section 4.
The court then considered whether Defendants had waived their right
to arbitrate by moving to strike the class action claims
simultaneously with moving to compel arbitration. The court
explained that a party may be found to have waived its right to
arbitration if it: (1) knew of an existing right to arbitration;
(2) acted inconsistently with that right; and (3) prejudiced the
other party by these inconsistent acts. Invoking the litigation
machinery before asserting an arbitration right, including by
requesting that a court dispose of a case on the merits before
reaching arbitration, is inconsistent with resolving a case through
arbitration.
However, the Eighth Circuit concluded that a motion to strike
class-action allegations (without an accompanying motion to dismiss
the underlying individual allegations) is not a disposal request
"on the merits." Moreover, the purpose of moving to strike was to
allow the trial court to compel arbitration under the terms of the
agreement. Thus, the Eighth Circuit found that Defendants did not
act inconsistently with their right to arbitrate and, therefore,
did not waive their right to arbitrate.
Finding that Defendants had properly exercised their right to
arbitration, the Eighth Circuit next analyzed Defendants' motion to
strike the class-action allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f),
which permits a court to strike from a pleading "any insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
matter." The court explained that there is a split among federal
courts about whether a court can strike class-action allegations at
the pleadings stage. However, the Eighth Circuit agreed with the
Sixth Circuit that a district court may grant a motion to strike
class-action allegations before a motion for class-action
certification is filed when it is "apparent from the pleadings that
the class cannot be certified." The court reasoned that this
finding was consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A), which
directs district courts to decide whether to certify a class "[a]t
an early practicable time."
The Eighth Circuit concluded that it was an abuse of discretion for
the district court to deny the motions to strike the class-action
allegations. The court found that Donelson could not maintain a
class action because the class claims would not be cohesive;
Donelson's claims relied on Sachse's individualized oral
misrepresentations about his investment account. The court further
reasoned that delaying the decision of whether Donelson could
certify a class would have needlessly required the parties to
remain in court despite their arbitration agreement. It also risked
waiver of arbitration if the parties were forced to endure
litigation proceedings until the court ruled on the motion
challenging class certification.
Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit reversed the trial court's denial
of Defendants' motion to strike the class-action allegations and
compel arbitration, remanding for entry of an order striking the
class-action allegations and compelling arbitration.
Sydney Hunemuller of the Dallas office contributed to this summary.
[GN]
ANNOVIS BIO: Bragar Eagel Reminds of October 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ: ZY),
Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE: ANVS), and Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:
SAVA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.
Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ: ZY)
Class Period: April 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021
In April 2021, Zymergen completed its IPO, selling approximately
18.5 million shares of common stock at $31 per share.
On August 3, 2021, after the market closed, Zymergen issued a
business update stating that it "recently became aware of issues
with its commercial product pipeline that will impact the Company's
delivery timeline and revenue projections." Specifically, "several
key target customers encountered technical issues in implementing
Hyaline into their manufacturing processes," and Zymergen also
found that its total addressable market appears to be smaller than
previously expected. As a result, Zymergen "no longer expects
product revenue in 2021, and expects product revenue to be
immaterial in 2022." The Company also announced that its CEO was
stepping down, effective immediately.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $26.58 per share, or
76%, to close at $8.25 per share on August 4, 2021, representing a
nearly 73% decline from the IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, during the qualification
process for Hyaline, key customers had encountered technical
issues, including product shrinkage and incompatibility with
customers' processes; (2) that, though the qualification process
was critical to achieving market acceptance for Hyaline and
generating revenue, Zymergen lacked visibility into the
qualification process; (3) that, as a result, the Company
overestimated demand for its products; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's product delivery timeline was reasonably
likely to be delayed, which in turn would delay revenue generation;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Zymergen class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ZY
Annovis Bio, Inc. (NYSE: ANVS)
Class Period: May 21, 2021 to July 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
On July 28, 2021, after the market closed, Annovis reported interim
clinical data from its Phase 2a trial. Among other things, the
Company reported that AD patients 25 days after treatment failed to
show statistically significant improvement compared to the placebo.
Annovis also reported that, although patients showed cognitive
improvements in certain areas, the results were not statistically
significant.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $65.94, or 60%, to
close at $43.50 per share on July 29, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Annovis's ANVS401 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, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
For more information on the Annovis Bio class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ANVS
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: SAVA)
Class Period: September 14, 2020 to August 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
On August 24, 2021, after the market closed, reports emerged about
a citizen petition submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") concerning the accuracy and integrity of
clinical data for simufilam. The petition requested that the FDA
halt Cassava's clinical trials pending a thorough audit of the
publications and data relied upon by the Company.
Among other things, the petition stated that the "detailed analysis
of the western blots [relied on by Cassava to support the
connection between simufilam and Alzheimer's] shows a series of
anomalies that are suggestive of systematic data manipulation and
misrepresentation." It also stated that the methodology for studies
"about Simufilam's effects in experiments conducted on postmortem
human brain tissue . . . defies logic, and the data presented again
have hallmarks of manipulation." The petition further stated that,
after initial analyses of Phase 2b trials found that Simufilam was
ineffective in improving the primary biomarkers endpoint, "Cassava
had these samples analyzed again and this time reported that
Simufilam rapidly and robustly improved a wide array of biomarkers"
and the reanalysis "shows signs of data anomalies or
manipulation."
On August 25, 2021, before the market opened, Cassava issued a
response to the petition, claiming that the allegations regarding
scientific integrity are false and misleading. Among other things,
the Company claimed that the clinical data, which the citizen
petition stated had been reanalyzed to show simufilam was
effective, had been generated by Quanterix Corp. ("Quanterix"), an
independent company, suggesting that the reanalysis was valid.
On August 27, 2021, before the market opened, Quanterix issued a
statement denying the Company's claims, stating that it "did not
interpret the test results or prepare the data" touted by Cassava.
The same day, Cassava responded to Quanterix's statement, stating
that "Quanterix'[s] sole responsibility with regard to this
clinical study was to perform sample testing, specifically, to
measure levels of p-tau in plasma samples collected from study
subjects."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.51, or 17.6%, to
close at $58.34 per share on August 27, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed
to disclose to investors: (1) that data underlying the foundational
research for Cassava's product candidates had been manipulated; (2)
that experiments using post-mortem human brain tissue frozen for
nearly 10 years was contrary to a basic understanding of
neurobiology; (3) that biomarker analysis for patients treated with
simufilam had been manipulated to conclude that simufilam was
effective; (4) that Quanterix, an independent company, had not
interpreted the test results or prepared the data charts for the
biomarker analysis for patients treated with simufilam; (5) that,
as a result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood
that Cassava would face regulatory scrutiny in connection with the
development of simufilam; and (6) 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.
For more information on the Cassava Sciences class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SAVA
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
APPHARVEST INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of November 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against AppHarvest, Inc.
("AppHarvest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APPH) and reminds
investors of the November 23, 2021 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been
filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in AppHarvest
stock or options between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 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:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/APPH.
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 AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its recently
expanded labor force; (2) that, as a result, the Company could not
produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) that, as a result,
the Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; 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 11, 2021, before the market opened, AppHarvest announced
its second quarter financial results, reporting a $32.0 million net
loss. The Company also lowered its full year sales guidance to a
range of $7 million to $9 million, from a prior range of $20
million to $25 million. AppHarvest attributed the lower than
expected results to "operational headwinds with the full ramp up to
full production at the company's first CEA facility, including
labor and productivity challenges related to the training and
development of the new workforce and historically low market prices
for tomatoes."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.46, or
approximately 29%, to close at $8.51 per share on August 11, 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 AppHarvest's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
APPHARVEST INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against AppHarvest, Inc. ("AppHarvest" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: APPH) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who
purchased AppHarvest securities between May 17, 2021 and August 10,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked
sufficient training for its recently expanded labor force; (ii) as
a result, the Company could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes
consistently; (iii) consequently, the Company's financial results
would be adversely impacted; and (iv) as such, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On August 11, 2021, the Company announced its second quarter 2021
financial results, reporting a $32.0 million net loss. The Company
also lowered its full year sales guidance to a range of $7 million
to $9 million, from a prior range of $20 million to $25 million.
The Company attributed the lower-than-expected results to
"operational headwinds with the ramp up to full production at the
company's first CEA facility, including labor and productivity
challenges related to the training and development of the new
workforce and historically low market prices for tomatoes." On this
news, the Company's share price fell approximately 29%, damaging
investors.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of AppHarvest
should contact the Firm prior to the November 23, 2021 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
APPHARVEST INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of Nov. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
AppHarvest, Inc. ("AppHarvest" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APPH)
securities between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). AppHarvest investors have until November 23, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their AppHarvest investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
AppHarvest is a sustainable food company that operates applied
technology greenhouses to produce fresh, chemical-free, non-GMO
fruits, vegetables, and related products.
AppHarvest became a public company following a business combination
with Novus Capital Corporation that closed on or about January 29,
2021.
On August 11, 2021, before the market opened, AppHarvest announced
its second quarter financial results, reporting a $32.0 million net
loss. The Company also lowered its full year sales guidance to a
range of $7 million to $9 million, from a prior range of $20
million to $25 million. AppHarvest attributed the lower than
expected results to "operational headwinds with the full ramp up to
full production at the company's first CEA facility, including
labor and productivity challenges related to the training and
development of the new workforce and historically low market prices
for tomatoes."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.46, or
approximately 29%, to close at $8.51 per share on August 11, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that AppHarvest lacked sufficient training for its
recently expanded labor force; (2) that, as a result, the Company
could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's financial results would be adversely
impacted; 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.
If you purchased AppHarvest securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
APPHARVEST INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 27
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of AppHarvest, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPH)
between May 17, 2021 and August 10, 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 23, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased AppHarvest 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 AppHarvest class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2164.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 23, 2021.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, 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) AppHarvest lacked sufficient
training for its recently expanded labor force; (2) as a result,
the Company could not produce Grade No. 1 tomatoes consistently;
(3) as a result, the Company's financial results would be adversely
impacted; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the AppHarvest class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2164.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
APPHARVEST INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of November 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against AppHarvest,
Inc. ("AppHarvest" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: APPH) for violations
of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 17,
2021 and August 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before November 23, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AppHarvest failed to sufficiently train
its expanded workforce. The Company could not consistently produce
Grade No. 1 tomatoes in its facilities. These problems were likely
to impact the Company's financial performance. 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 AppHarvest, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
BLACK HORSE: Blank Rome Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
David Oberly, Esq., of Blank Rome LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that on September 17, 2021, the Illinois Appellate Court
First District delivered its much-anticipated decision in Tims v.
Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (1st Dist.
Sep. 17, 2021), addressing the applicable statute of limitations
for causes of action asserted under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").
The court held that claims brought under Sections 15(a), (b), and
(e) -- pertaining to the law's privacy policy/data destruction,
notice/consent, and data security requirements -- are subject to a
five-year statute of limitations. Conversely, claims asserted under
Sections 15(c) and (d) -- relating to the law's ban on profiting
from biometric data and disclosure limitations -- are subject to a
one-year limitations period.
Importantly, in finding that BIPA's two most commonly asserted
provisions, Sections 15(a) and (b), are subject to the longer
five-year limitations period, the opinion ensures that the tsunami
of class action BIPA filings will continue to flood the courts for
the foreseeable future.
Background
Section 13-201 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides a
one-year statute of limitations for "[a]ctions for slander, libel
or for publication of matter violating the right to privacy."
Section 13-205 provides a five-year limitations period for "all
civil actions not otherwise provided for." BIPA itself, however,
does not provide an explicit limitations period in the text of the
statute.
In Tims, the Illinois appellate court was tasked with determining
whether BIPA claims are subject to a one-year limitations period
under Section 13-201 or a five-year period under Section 13-205.
To date, trial courts that have tackled this issue have found in
almost uniform fashion that the five-year catchall limitations
period applies to all BIPA claims. See Stauffer v. Innovative
Heights Fairview Heights, LLC, 480 F.Supp.3d 888, 904-05 (S.D. Ill.
2020); Burlinski v. Top Golf USA Inc., 2020 WL 5253150, at *7 (N.D.
Ill. Sep. 3, 2020); Quarles v. Pret A Manger (USA) Limited, 2021 WL
1614518, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2021); Robertson v. Hostmark
Hosp. Group, Inc., 2019 WL 8640568, at *2-4 (Cook Cnty. July 31,
2019).
Section 15(a), (b), and (e) Claims Are Subject to a Five-Year
Limitations Period
On appeal, the Tims court held that the longer, five-year catchall
period applies to claims brought under Sections 15(a), (b), and
(e).
BIPA Section 15(a) requires entities to develop a publicly
available written policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for the permanent destruction of biometric data and to
adhere to their retention schedules and destruction guidelines.
Section 15(b) requires entities to provide notice and obtain
consent before collecting any biometric data. And Section 15(e)
requires entities to maintain reasonable security measures to
safeguard biometric data.
In its opinion, the court noted that Section 13-201's shorter
one-year limitations for actions relating to "privacy violations"
does not encompass all privacy actions, but rather only those that
involve publication as an element or inherent part of the action.
This includes claims pertaining to public disclosure of private
facts, appropriation of the name and likeness of another, and
false-light publicity -- where publication is an element of each of
these torts.
Applied to the context of BIPA, Sections 15(a), (b), and (e) do not
involve claims "for publication of matter violating the right of
privacy," as a plaintiff could bring an action alleging violations
of these three subparts of Section 15 without having to allege (let
alone prove) that the defendant published or disclosed biometric
data to any third party. Consequently, the one-year limitations
period has no applicability Section 15(a), (b), and (e) causes of
action. By default, then, the five-year catchall provision governs
these claims.
Section 15(c) and (d) Claims Are Subject to a One-Year Limitations
Period
The court held that the remaining two provisions -- Sections 15(c)
and (d) -- are subject to a shorter, one-year limitations period.
Section 15(c) bars individuals or entities from selling, leasing,
trading, or otherwise profiting from biometric data. Section 15(d)
requires entities in possession of biometric data to obtain consent
(or satisfy other prerequisites) before disclosing, redisclosing,
or disseminating a person's biometric data.
Here, the court reasoned that publication or disclosure of
biometric data is "clearly" an element of a Section 15(d) claim,
which is violated by disclosing or otherwise disseminating
biometric data without first obtaining consent or satisfying other
specified prerequisites. Similarly, Section 15(c) bars an entity
from selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from
biometric data -- which also entails a publication, conveyance, or
dissemination of such data. In other words, claims asserted under
Sections 15(c) or (d) are actions "for publication of matter
violating the right of privacy."
Takeaways
At first glance, the Tims decision may seem to be a win for
defendants as a result of its holding that the shorter, one-year
limitations period applies on Section 15(c) and (d) claims -- which
diverges from the prior trial court decisions which found these
claims to be subject to the five-year catchall limitations period.
With that said, any "win" may ultimately be a pyrrhic one, as the
opinion solidifies application of the much lengthier five-year
limitations period for the two most-litigated provisions of
Illinois' biometric privacy statute -- Sections 15(a) and (b).
Ultimately, Tims will likely have no appreciable impact on stemming
the tide of BIPA class action filings that has continued apace
since the Illinois Supreme Court's January 2019 decision in
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019),
holding that plaintiffs do not have to suffer any actual injury or
harm to pursue BIPA claims. Instead, companies that utilize
biometrics in their operations should expect to see a continued
flurry of BIPA class action filings moving forward.
Moreover, while Tims offers some level of clarity on the statute of
limitations question, it is by no means the final word on this
matter, as a second appeal also addressing this issue, Marion v.
Ring Container Techs., LLC, No. 3-20-0184, remains pending in the
Illinois Appellate Court Third District at this time. The Marion
appeal is currently stayed pending the decision in another BIPA
appeal, McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville, No. 126511, where the
Illinois Supreme Court will provide litigants with a definitive
answer on whether BIPA claims are preempted by the Illinois
Workers' Compensation Act ("IWCA"). In addition, it is reasonably
likely that the Tims decision itself may also be appealed to the
Illinois Supreme Court. Thus, it may be some time before we have a
definitive answer as to the applicable statute of limitations for
BIPA causes of action.
Finally, companies must also take note of the brief but potentially
consequential discussion by the Tims court on the issue of
liquidated damages, which could have far-reaching consequences in
future BIPA litigation by greatly expanding the scope of potential
BIPA liability exposure even further. On this issue, the Tims court
noted that because BIPA provides the ability for a prevailing party
to recover for each violation, "a plaintiff who alleges and
eventually proves [a] violation of multiple duties could collect
multiple recoveries of liquidated damages." For example, a
plaintiff who proves a violation of Section 15(a)'s duty to
establish a guidelines for the permanent destruction of biometric
data, as well as a violation of the duty to adhere to those
guidelines, may be entitled to two recoveries of liquidated
damages, despite the fact that only one subpart of Section 15 has
been violated. [GN]
BOB DEAN: Faces Suit Over Nursing Home's Deplorable Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
fox8live.com reports that some residents of 7 nursing homes have
painted the squalid, horrible, inhumane conditions when they were
evacuated to a warehouse for Hurricane Ida.
"We had a pillow but none of this was clean, you had to lay on a
mattress on the floor and listen to all this, you were in survival
mode," said Melanie Sieberth.
But the nurses and caretakers were right alongside them.
"They were understaffed, and my clients worked around the clock to
do everything they could to try and take care of these residents,
and they did so without being fed and without having all of the
proper tools they needed to do their job," said Jonathan Pedersen.
Logging round-the-clock hours, attorney Jonathan Pedersen says they
were only paid for a fraction of that.
"Some staff members were required to evacuate because they were
upper-level management some were not, they were all guaranteed a
hurricane pay rate. One of the timesheets shows it was 90 hours and
one week and then at the end of the day one of my clients received
a paycheck for less than half of what she was due," said Pedersen.
According to the lawsuit, employees were notified of the hurricane
pay rate, an emergency, sliding scale pay rate based on an
employee's title and qualifications. Pedersen estimates owner, Bob
Dean owes thousands of dollars to these caretakers.
"Bob Dean has been remarkably silent and should not be allowed to
stay silent and it's time for him to face the music. He has
responsibilities to residence and to his staff and yet he has
refused to speak up and try to account for his actions," said
Pedersen.
He says these nurses are traumatized themselves.
"The conditions were so bad that one of my clients came home to
100% devastation at her house and she said that was better than
being inside of the warehouse," said Pedersen.
As these nurses were the first ones to sound the alarm on the
deplorable conditions, he says they're at the very least owed their
full pay check.
"This entire situation is tragic and preventable and should never
have happened. My clients stayed, they tried to do everything they
could and they are some of the heroes of the story because they
didn't have to do this but they stayed anyway," said Pedersen.
In a statement, attorney for Bob Dean, John Andrishok says: "On
behalf of the Defendants, we have conducted a cursory review of the
Petition and to the extent that it is alleged that Defendants
failed to timely pay wages due hourly employees, such allegations
are categorically denied. We believe the claims are meritless and
we intend to vigorously defend this matter. If you have any
additional questions, feel free to contact me directly."
See a spelling or grammar error in our story? Click Here to report
it. Please include the headline. [GN]
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Faces Class Action Over "Goof Proof" Plans
----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Bob's Discount Furniture has misrepresented
its "Goof Proof Protection" plans given customers' claims can be
denied "on almost any basis," including if a buyer cannot identify
the exact date on which a tear or stain occurred.
The 21-page case, echoing a similar suit filed in New York in
January 2021, alleges Bob's sale of the "Goof Proof" plans,
administered by third-party Guardian Protection Products, causes
harm to consumers in that the extended service warranties'
apparently limited scope is not clearly defined by the furniture
retailer, who leads consumers to believe the plans cover a broad
array of accidental damage.
Although documents presented to consumers represent the "Goof
Proof" plan as the best way to "protect your investment from a wide
variety of accidents for 5 years," what the insurance plans
actually cover does not meet the definition of a bona fide service
contract, the lawsuit alleges.
"Regardless of the three card Monty game which purports to offer
coverage from accidents and 'misuse,' the coverage is a scam and
worthless," the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiff, an Illinois consumer, alleges in the case that Bob's
and Guardian wrongfully denied the "Goof Proof" coverage claim she
submitted after the wood slats underneath a queen-sized bed she
bought in November 2020 broke shortly after purchase. According to
the suit, the plaintiff's accidental damage claim was denied by
Guardian on the basis that "she was not using the product as
intended."
"It is false and deceptive for Defendant Bob's to market an
insurance product that promises to provide coverage for 'goofs,'
yet also describe Goof Proof as coverage for accidents," the
complaint says. "Consumers understand the term 'Goof Proof' broadly
to mean 'mistake proof,' i.e., if something goes wrong with
furniture, they will be covered if they purchased Goof Proof."
According to the lawsuit, concern exists around the sale of
extended service warranties by third parties as they may fail to
disclose essential coverage terms, refuse to cover certain expenses
or decline to provide adequate service for a particular product. In
the case of the "Goof Proof" plans sold by Bob's and administered
by Guardian, the latter, via Bob's, forms a contract with the
customer for a period of five years, and in theory assumes risk by
agreeing to indemnify the insured for losses specifically related
to accidental damage to furniture, such as stains or tears, the
lawsuit says:
"Goof Proof explicitly does not promise to repair, replace, or
maintain the furniture in connection with its 'operational or
structural failure due to a defect in materials or workmanship, or
normal wear and tear.' Goof Proof is intended to cover fortuitous
events, or those that happen by accident or chance, rather than by
design."
Per the complaint, an insurer such as Guardian cannot confine
causation to the point where recovery for a customer's claim is
impossible. The requirement of fortuity as it relates to "Goof
Proof claims," the case says, "ensures that the scope of coverage
provided is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the
contracting parties."
Given the foregoing, the plaintiff contends that the damage
incurred to the Bob's bed she purchased clearly fits within
Guardian's extended warranty plan, yet was wrongfully characterized
as "misuse," an apparently common reason for coverage denials.
"Defendant Guardian denies most claims based on 'misuse,'" the suit
alleges. "However, the definition of 'Goof' encompasses 'misuse,'
even inadvertent misuse."
The lawsuit contends that Bob's alleged sale of products
"tantamount to insurance" but without the protections and
restrictions imposed on insurance contracts is harmful to the
public. Moreover, the case relays that consumers may be
incentivized to buy "Goof Proof" coverage given the discounted
nature of Bob's products.
Per the filing, Bob's "receives incentives from Defendant Guardian
for every warranty it sells to consumers," and sales employees
"receive bonuses for the number of Goof Proof products they sell."
"The salesperson conveyed to Plaintiff that Goof Proof would cover
'anything and everything,' when Plaintiff asked questions about
purchasing the coverage," the case claims.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that Bob's and Guardian "regularly"
deny "Goof Proof" claims if a customer is unable to identify the
exact date within a 30-day period when a stain or damage occurred,
or if there is more than one marking or puncture on a piece of
furniture.
"Defendant Bob's sold more of the Goof Proof Products, and at
higher prices, than it would have in the absence of this
misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of
consumers," the suit alleges. [GN]
BOSTON BEER: Glancy Prongay Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming November 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired The Boston Beer Company, Inc. ("Boston Beer" or
the "Company") (NYSE: SAM) securities between April 22, 2021 and
September 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Boston Beer investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/the-boston-beer-company-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On July 22, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer reduced its
full year 2021 guidance, expecting earnings per share between $18
and $22, down from a prior range of $22 and $26. The Company cited
softer-than-expected sales in the hard seltzer category and overall
beer industry and also stated that it had "overestimated the growth
of the hard seltzer category in the second quarter."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $246.54, or 26%, to
close at $701.00 per share on July 23, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On September 8, 2021, after the market closed, Boston Beer withdrew
its 2021 financial guidance, citing decelerating sales of hard
seltzer products. The Company also stated that it "expects to incur
hard seltzer-related inventory write-offs, shortfall fees payable
to 3rd party brewers, and other costs" for the remainder of fiscal
2021.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $21.09, or 3.7%, to
close at $538.31 per share on September 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Boston Beer's hard seltzer sales were
decelerating; (2) that, as a result, Boston Beer was reasonably
likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) that the Company was
reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third party
brewers; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Beer securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
November 15, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
BOSTON BEER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of November 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of The Boston Beer Company, Inc.
(NYSE: SAM) between April 22, 2021 and September 8, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important November 15, 2021 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Boston Beer 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 Boston Beer class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2159.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 15, 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) Boston Beer's hard seltzer
sales were decelerating; (2) as a result, Boston Beer was
reasonably likely to incur inventory write-offs; (3) Boston Beer
was reasonably likely to incur shortfall fees payable to third
party brewers; (4) a result of the foregoing, Boston Beer's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Boston
Beer's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Boston Beer class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2159.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]
BRISTOL-MYERS: Duplicative Class Actions Allowed to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Enano at lawtimesnews.com reports that the Ontario
Divisional Court has dismissed an appeal brought by pharmaceutical
companies to reverse a decision certifying a duplicative class
action and dismissing a motion for a stay.
In Kirsh v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, 2021 ONSC 6190, the plaintiffs
issued a statement of claim seeking to certify their class action
in Ontario. They alleged that the defendants, manufacturers of
antipsychotic medications, Abilify and Abilify Maintena, were
negligent and conspired to conceal the harmful side effects of the
medications. After commencement of the action but prior to the
certification motion, the plaintiffs, in a parallel class action in
Quebec, amended their statement of claim to mirror the claim in the
Ontario class action. The Quebec Superior Court authorized their
class action to proceed unopposed.
During the certification proceedings, the defendants opposed the
certification and filed a motion to stay the Ontario class action.
They alleged that given the duplicative nature between the Ontario
and Quebec class proceedings, the motion judge should rule that the
Ontario class action was an abuse of process and not the preferable
procedure.
The motion judge certified the Ontario class action and dismissed
the motion for a stay. On appeal, the defendants sought for
reversal of the motion judge's decision.
In its ruling, the Divisional Court held that the motion judge's
decision not to grant a stay was entitled to deference. An
appellate court could only interfere if the decision was based on
an error in principle or if it was clearly wrong, the court added.
The court said not only did the motion judge note the potential
duplication but also significantly considered the overall history
of both class proceedings, including the last-minute modifications
to the claim in the Quebec class action and the defendants' choice
not to oppose authorization in Quebec while vigorously opposing
certification in Ontario. Taking such circumstances into
consideration, the motion judge did not make an error in principle
nor was his decision clearly wrong, the court stressed.
"There is no presumption that a duplicative class proceeding is an
abuse of process. Rather, each case must be decided on its own
facts," the court stated. While the Ontario class action was
duplicative, the court agreed with the motion judge that the
history of both proceedings did not render the Ontario class action
an abuse of process.
The court found that the motion judge's decision on preferable
procedure was also entitled to deference. His conclusion that the
Ontario class action was the preferable procedure was nevertheless
supported by his reasoning on the stay issue and the record as a
whole, the court explained. [GN]
BT GROUP: Consumers' Opt-Out Class Action Granted Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monkcton Chambers reports that on September 27, 2021, the
Competition Appeals Tribunal (CAT) has certified opt-out collective
proceedings against BT for alleged excessive pricing in abuse of
its dominant position in standalone landline telephone services.
The class representative, Mr Justin Le Patourel, will now represent
over 2 million consumers in their claims that have an estimated
value of up to £600m.
The unanimous judgment from the CAT (available here) held that "the
opt-out basis is clearly more appropriate and suitable than the
opt-in basis" and rejected all of BT's arguments to the contrary.
The CAT also dismissed all of BT's submissions that the claims
should be struck. It held that "there is a real prospect of success
for this claim and [BT's] cross-application must be dismissed…
[The claims] must be determined at a full trial after all the
relevant evidence is adduced and considered".
The decision is the first successful defence of an application for
strike-out / summary judgment in a CPO claim. It is only the second
collective proceedings order granted by the CAT.
Ronit Kreisberger QC, Nikolaus Grubeck, and Jack Williams represent
the successful class representative, Justin Le Patourel. The
counsel team are instructed by Mishcon de Reya. [GN]
BT GROUP: GBP589MM Class Action Over Illegal Fees Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Britain's antitrust tribunal allowed litigation
on Sept. 27 accusing BT of charging unfair landline rates to go
forward as a £589 million ($810 million) class action, concluding
that the claim has a prospect of success that should be tested at
trial. [GN]
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: December 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In Re: CANNTRUST HOLDINGS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 1:19-cv-06396-JPO
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF U.S.
CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS
www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca
If you purchased the publicly traded common stock of CannTrust
Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust") on the New York Stock Exchange or on
any U.S. based trading platform or pursuant or traceable to
CannTrust's May 6, 2019 secondary offering, you may be entitled to
a payment from several class action settlements.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed U.S.
Class Action Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
members of the proposed U.S. Settlement Class, and defendant
CannTrust and several other defendants in this proposed class
action lawsuit (collectively, "Settling Defendants"), have reached
eight proposed settlements of the majority of the claims in the
above-captioned U.S. class action (the "U.S. Class Action"), as
well as actions pending in Canada and California (collectively with
the U.S. Class Action, the "Actions"), in amounts totaling
approximately C$83,000,000[1] in exchange for releases of liability
(the "Settlements").
The proposed Settlements will be implemented pursuant to an amended
and restated plan of compromise, arrangement and reorganization of
CannTrust, CannTrust Inc. and Elmcliffe Investments Inc. (as may be
further amended from time to time in accordance with its terms),
pursuant to Canada's Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-36, as amended, (the "CCAA Plan"), which was approved by
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) by a
"sanction order" entered on July 16, 2021 (the "CCAA Sanction
Order"). Implementation of the CCAA Plan requires, among other
things, approval of the Settlements as they relate to the U.S.
Class Action by the U.S. Court. The CCAA Plan provides for, inter
alia, the restructuring of CannTrust so that it can emerge from
insolvency, the administration of the Settlements for the benefit
of CannTrust's investors, and the handling of unsettled claims
related to the alleged wrongdoing at issue in the Actions.
A telephonic hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Paul
Oetken on Thursday, December 2, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. New York time
(the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should:
(i) approve the proposed Settlements, as they relate to the U.S.
Class Action, as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (ii) approve
the proposed Allocation and Distribution Scheme for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlements to U.S. Settlement Class Members.
The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without
providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement
Hearing to receive a payment.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE U.S. SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you purchased the publicly traded common
stock of CannTrust on the New York Stock Exchange or on any U.S.
based trading platform or pursuant or traceable to CannTrust's May
6, 2019 secondary offering and have not yet received a full Notice
and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
visiting the website for the Settlements,
www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
CannTrust Securities Settlements
c/o Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc.
P.O. Box 507 STN B
Ottawa ON K1P 5P6
www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca
info@CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca
1-833-871-5359
Inquiries about the U.S. Class Action, other than requests for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to U.S.
Class Action Counsel:
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
James W. Johnson, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
1-888-219-6877
If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share
in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlements, you must
submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than
March 16, 2022. (Any extensions of this deadline will be posted on
the website for the Settlements:
www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca). If you are a U.S. Settlement
Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds from
the Settlements, but you will nevertheless be bound by the terms of
the Settlements as they relate to the U.S. Class Action, all of the
U.S. Court's orders about the Settlements, whether favorable or
unfavorable, the CCAA Sanction Order and CCAA Plan.
If you are a U.S. Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude
yourself from the U.S. Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice so that it is received no later than November 11, 2021. This
is the only option that potentially may allow you to ever bring or
be part of any other lawsuit against the Settling Defendants and
their related parties about the released claims. However, the
Settlement Parties believe that the CCAA Sanction Order will
operate to bar any claims by the U.S. Settlement Class Members
against the Settling Defendants and their related parties
regardless of whether they request exclusion from the U.S.
Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself from the U.S. Settlement
Class, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
proceeds of the Settlements.
Any objections to the proposed Settlements and/or the proposed
Allocation and Distribution Scheme must be filed with the U.S.
Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel in
accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are
received no later than November 11, 2021.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: September 28, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
URL// www.CannTrustSecuritiesSettlement.ca
1 For informational purposes, at the time the Settlements were
reached (January 19, 2021 to May 24, 2021), the C$/US$ exchange
rate ranged from C$1.20 to C$1.28 per US$1.00 with an average of
C$1.25 per US$1.00. Accordingly, at the time of the Settlements,
C$83,000,000 was equivalent to approximately US$66,400,000. [GN]
CARDINAL GROUP: Mint Urban Infinity Tenants File Class-Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hilal Bahcetepe at westword.com reports that after complaining
about conditions for months, residents of the Mint Urban Infinity
apartment complex at 1251 South Bellaire Street have joined in a
class-action civil lawsuit filed by the Cadiz Law firm against the
complex's property manager, Cardinal Group Management.
While Mint Urban Infinity bills the complex as "current, hip,
sophistication" on its website, it's actually "best characterized
as a slum," according to an announcement of the September 30
filing. During one of the state's hottest summers on record, the
air-conditioning was broken in many units, others were infested
with cockroaches, and between July 6 and July 15, one building had
no hot water.
Tenants are also concerned about security and safety. Since 2018,
the Denver Fire Department has reported more than 64
elevator-related incidents at the complex.
"The landlord hasn't kept their part of the bargain - it's as
simple as that. These tenants have paid their rent, but Cardinal
Group Management has not provided them with a safe, healthy place
to live, as required by their lease contract and the law," said
Jason Legg, the plaintiffs' attorney, in announcing the suit.
"We're asking the court to make it clear that tenants can break
their leases penalty-free and to find that Cardinal Group
Management isn't entitled to keep and collect rent from these
tenants when it's not holding up its end of the contract."
Brandon Smith, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, spent months
organizing a campaign and collecting evidence from tenants; legal
representation became a last resort after they'd tried every avenue
to remedy the situation, he explains. "They're not going to be
capable of fixing these issues because they've been so grossly
negligent so far," he says. "I want people to be able to move out,
and I want the state law to change. Hopefully, this will show the
flaws and the loopholes that allow property managers to get away
with these things."
Denver renters have limited options for dealing with negligent
landlords. Tenants can reach out to the Denver Department of Public
Health and Environment and request an investigation, and a few
nonprofits offer financial and legal resources. But direct legal
action is often the only way to hold landlords accountable,
advocates say.
When Mint Urban Infinity tenants try to break their leases because
of poor conditions, they're often asked to pay extra rent and sign
a non-disclosure agreement. "They have broken our leasing
agreement, and they want us to pay to move out and they want us to
pay to leave, just so they can make extra money," says Smith. "This
is unbridled capitalism. Lots of landlords are doing this because
they can get away with it. No one is checking them or auditing
them, nobody is looking into this stuff. Everybody living here is
under a constant state of fear."
Cardinal Group Management manages 20,000 units in the state and
thousands more across the country. Its properties consist largely
of lower-income, student and multi-level family housing.
9to5 Colorado is working with the tenants to support the lawsuit.
"The last three years, there have been significant changes to
tenant habitability law. We have more protections, it's a bit more
balanced, but still not balanced enough, and we need to focus on
implementation," says Andrea Chiraboga-Flor, executive director of
9to5 Colorado. "For so long, this has been the culture and
atmosphere of 'landlords can get away with whatever,' because
there's not a lot that tenants could do or resources they could
turn to."
While tenant rights haven't been a priority for elected officials,
Chiraboga-Flor hopes that cases like this one will bring more
attention to the lack of landlord accountability.
Thirty tenants have signed affidavits regarding alleged violations
of the Warranty of Habitability law at Mint Urban Infinity, whose
management has not responded to requests for comment. [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of October 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Oct. 4 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:SAVA)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT SAVA:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/cassava-sciences-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=20076&from=1
Class Period: September 14, 2020 - August 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)
the quality and integrity of the scientific data supporting
Cassava's claims for simufilam's, a small molecule drug designed to
treat Alzheimer's disease, efficacy had been overstated; (b) the
scientific data supporting Cassava's claims for simufilam's
efficacy were biased; and (c) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements during the Class Period about the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects and the
likelihood of Food and Drug Administration approval were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:SPPI)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT SPPI:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/spectrum-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=20076&from=1
Class Period: December 27, 2018 - August 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 1, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the manufacturing facility for ROLONTIS, an investigational
granulocyte-colony stimulating factor analog, maintained deficient
controls and/or procedures; (ii) the foregoing deficiencies
decreased the likelihood that the Food and Drug Administration
would approve the ROLONTIS biologics license application ("BLA") in
its current form; (iii) Spectrum had therefore materially
overstated the ROLONTIS BLA's approval prospects; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
The Honest Company, Inc. (NASDAQ:HNST)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT HNST:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/the-honest-company-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=20076&from=1
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Honest common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's May 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
prior to the Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), the Company's results
had been significantly impacted by a multimillion-dollar COVID-19
stock-up for products in the Diapers and Wipes category and
Household and Wellness category; (2) at the time of the IPO, the
Company was experiencing decelerating demand for such products; (3)
as a result, the Company's financial results would likely be
adversely impacted; 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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cassava Sciences, Inc. ("Cassava" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SAVA) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, and docketed under 21-cv-00856, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava securities
between September 14, 2020 and August 27, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Cassava securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 26, 2021 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Cassava is an Austin-based clinical stage biotechnology company
engaged in the development of drugs for neurodegenerative diseases.
Its lead therapeutic product candidate is called simufilam
(formerly PTI-125) developed as a treatment for Alzheimer's disease
("AD"), and its lead investigational diagnostic product candidate
was SavaDx, a blood-based biomarker/diagnostic to detect AD.
Simufilam purportedly targets an altered form of a protein called
filamin A ("FLNA") in the Alzheimer's brain and reverts it to its
native, healthy conformation, thereby countering the downstream
toxic effects of altered FLNA. The Company's financial viability is
largely dependent upon the clinical success of simufilam as the
Company currently has no sources of revenues.
On February 2, 2021, Cassava announced results from its interim
analysis of an open-label study of simufilam, which purportedly
demonstrated that patients' cognition and behavior scores both
improved following six months of simufilam treatment, with no
safety issues. According to the Company, "[i]n a clinical study
funded by the National Institutes of Health and conducted by
Cassava Sciences, six months of simufilam treatment improved
cognition scores by 1.6 points on ADAS-Cog11, a 10% mean
improvement from baseline to month 6," and "[i]n these same
patients, simufilam also improved dementia related behavior, such
as anxiety, delusions and agitation, by 1.3 points on the
Neuropsychiatric Inventory, a 29% mean improvement from baseline to
month 6."
As the market digested this news, the market price of Cassava
common stock spiraled up, nearly quadrupling from its close of
$22.99 per share on February 1, 2021 to trade as high as $90 per
share in intraday trading by February 3, 2021. The stock spiked on
extremely high trading volume of more than 76 million shares
trading on February 2, 2021 alone, more than 19 times the average
daily volume over the preceding ten trading days. Cassava
immediately cashed in on the stock price inflation, issuing and
selling more than four million shares of its common stock at $49
per share on February 12, 2021 through an underwritten follow-on
public stock offering and reaping more than $200 million in gross
proceeds (the "Offering").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the quality and integrity
of the scientific data supporting Cassava's claims for simufilam's
efficacy had been overstated; (2) data underlying the foundational
research for Cassava's product candidates had been manipulated; (3)
experiments using post-mortem human brain tissue frozen for nearly
10 years was contrary to a basic understanding of neurobiology; (4)
biomarker analysis for patients treated with simufilam had been
manipulated to conclude that simufilam was effective; (5) Quanterix
Corp. ("Quanterix"), an independent company, had not interpreted
the test results or prepared the data charts for the biomarker
analysis for patients treated with simufilam; (6) as a result of
the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood that Cassava would
face regulatory scrutiny in connection with the development of
simufilam; and (7) as a result of all the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements during the Class Period about the Company's
business metrics and financial prospects and the likelihood of U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 29, 2021, Cassava issued a press release entitled "Cassava
Sciences Announces Positive Cognition Data with Simufilam in
Alzheimer's Disease." Although the press release touted supposedly
positive cognition data, analysts and industry observers noted that
the data had not demonstrated that simufilam was more effective at
improving cognition than Biogen Inc.'s ("Biogen") drug Aduhelm.
On this news, Cassava's share price fell $65.77, or 48.61%, over
two trading days, to close at $69.53 per share on July 30, 2021.
On August 24, 2021, after the market closed, reports emerged about
a citizen petition submitted to the FDA concerning the accuracy and
integrity of clinical data for simufilam. The petition requested
that the FDA halt Cassava's clinical trials pending a thorough
audit of the publications and data relied upon by the Company.
Among other things, the petition stated that the "[d]etailed
analysis of the western blots [relied on by Cassava to support the
connection between simufilam and Alzheimer's] shows a series of
anomalies that are suggestive of systematic data manipulation and
misrepresentation." It also stated that the methodology for studies
"about Simufilam's effects in experiments conducted on postmortem
human brain tissue . . . defies logic, and the data presented again
have hallmarks of manipulation." The petition further stated that,
after initial analyses of Phase 2b trials found that Simufilam was
ineffective in improving the primary biomarkers endpoint, "Cassava
had these samples analyzed again and this time reported that
Simufilam rapidly and robustly improved a wide array of biomarkers"
and the reanalysis "shows signs of data anomalies or
manipulation."
On August 25, 2021, before the market opened, Cassava issued a
response to the petition, claiming that the allegations regarding
scientific integrity are false and misleading. Among other things,
the Company claimed that the clinical data, which the citizen
petition stated had been reanalyzed to show simufilam was
effective, had been generated by Quanterix, an independent company,
suggesting that the reanalysis was valid.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $36.97, or 31.38%, to
close at $80.86 per share on August 25, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On August 27, 2021, before the market opened, Quanterix issued a
statement denying the Company's claims, stating that it "did not
interpret the test results or prepare the data" touted by Cassava.
The same day, Cassava responded to Quanterix's statement, stating
that "Quanterix'[s] sole responsibility with regard to this
clinical study was to perform sample testing, specifically, to
measure levels of p-tau in plasma samples collected from study
subjects."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.51, or 17.66%, to
close at $58.34 per share on August 27, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:
SAVA) between September 14, 2020 and August 27, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important October 26, 2021 lead
plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Cassava Sciences 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 Cassava Sciences class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2150.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 October 26, 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) data underlying the
foundational research for Cassava's product candidates had been
manipulated; (2) experiments using post-mortem human brain tissue
frozen for nearly 10 years was contrary to a basic understanding of
neurobiology; (3) biomarker analysis for patients treated with
simufilam had been manipulated to conclude that simufilam was
effective; (4) Quanterix, an independent company, had not
interpreted the test results or prepared the data charts for the
biomarker analysis for patients treated with simufilam; (5) as a
result of the foregoing, there was a reasonable likelihood that
Cassava would face regulatory scrutiny in connection with the
development of simufilam; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Cassava's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Cassava Sciences class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2150.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]
CHINA EVERGRANDE: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
China Evergrande Group ("China Evergrande" or the "Company")
(OTCMKTS: EGRNY; EGRNF). Such investors are advised to contact
Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext.
7980.
The investigation concerns whether China Evergrande and certain of
its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices.
On September 18, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "How Beijing's Debt Clampdown Shook the Foundation of a
Real-Estate Colossus: China Evergrande's looming collapse and its
ripple effect on the economy will pose a test for the government's
campaign to keep housing affordable for the masses". The article
reported, among other things, that "[y]ears of aggressive borrowing
have collided with Beijing's crackdown on debt, leaving [China
Evergrande] on the brink of collapse." On this news, China
Evergrande's share price fell sharply, damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
CINEFLIX MEDIA: Settles Workers' Class Action for $1 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that two Canadian media and
entertainment unions say a Toronto-based production company behind
some popular reality shows has agreed to pay Factual TV company
Cineflix workers at least $1 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit.
CWA Canada and IATSE say the settlement agreement was submitted to
an Ontario court on Sept. 27 for approval following three years of
negotiations.
The lawsuit was filed by law firm Cavalluzzo in 2018 on behalf of
hundreds of current and former workers at Cineflix, which produces
such TV shows as "Property Brothers" and "Mayday." It came after a
five-year "Fairness in Factual" campaign by CWA Canada to bring
fair working conditions to the industry. IATSE joined the campaign
in 2019, with the formation of the Factual Television Joint
Council.
The proposed settlement would be for all employment standards
entitlements (overtime pay, vacation pay, holiday pay) for nearly
everyone who worked for Cineflix as employees or independent
contractors since October 2016.
The unions say Cineflix also has until March to decide whether to
sign a collective agreement that has already been negotiated or pay
an additional lump sum.
Cavalluzzo has also filed a class-action lawsuit against Insight
Productions seeking damages for alleged employment standards
violations. That is still before the courts. Insight Productions is
best known for producing Canadian versions of shows such as "The
Amazing Race," "Big Brother" and CBC's "Battle of the Blades." [GN]
CREATIVE CARE: Forster Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Care, Inc.
The case is styled as Julie Forster, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Creative Care, Inc., Case No. 21STCV36380 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 4, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Creative Care -- https://www.creativecareinc.com/ -- has provided
innovative clinical excellence to primary mental health populations
for decades.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sam Sani, Esq.
SANI LAW, APC
15720 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 405
Encino, CA 91436-2999
Phone: 310-935-0405
Fax: 310-935-0409
Email: ssani@sanilawfirm.com
DAVIDOS BRIDAL: Aul Slams Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------
Cheri Aul, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Davidos Bridal, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-004589, (Fla. Cir., September 27, 2021), seeks an injunction and
statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
Davidos Bridal is a retailer of bridal products in the country,
offering its products for sale to consumers online and through a
national chain of brick-and-mortar stores.
Davidos Bridal allegedly sent text messages to Aul's phone without
the requisite prior express written consent. Despite "opting out,"
Aul continued to receive the text messages despite not having
consented to receive them in the first place and having
affirmatively attempted to prevent continuing to receive them.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
SunTrust Financial Center
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 500-1500
Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
Bonnie@TheConsumerProtectionFirm
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Patrick A. Barthle II
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
Email: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
PBarthle@ForThePeople.com
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Garcia Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DuPage Medical Group,
Ltd. The case is styled as Catherine Garcia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. DuPage Medical Group,
Ltd. doing business as: Dupage Medical Group doing business as:
Duly Health and Care, Case No. 1:21-cv-05035 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 23,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
DuPage Medical Group, now known as Duly Health and Care --
https://www.dulyhealthandcare.com/ -- is the largest independent,
multi-specialty physician-directed medical group in the Midwest
with more than 900 primary care and specialty care physicians and
more than 6,000 team members, in over 150 locations across Illinois
and Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 440-0020
Email: tom@attorneyzim.com
- and -
William B Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
DUPAGE MEDICAL: Polanski Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI
------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Polanski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DUPAGE MEDICAL GROUP, LTD., Case No. 2021L001006 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., 18th Judicial, DuPage Cty., Sept. 22, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and approximately 655,383 other individuals', private
and confidential medical information, including individuals' names,
addresses, dates of birth, diagnosis codes, service codes, and
treat- ment dates, plus the Social Security numbers of some
patients ("PII/PHI").
According to the complaint, between July 12, 2021 and July 13,
2021, unauthorized individuals gained access to DMG's IT network
and had access to files that contained the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and
Class members ("Data Breach"). DMG owed a duty to Plaintiff and
Class members to implement and maintain reasonable and adequate
security measures to secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI
against unauthorized access and disclosure. DMG breached that duty
by, among other things, failing to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect its
patients' PII/PHI from unauthorized access and disclosure.
As a result of DMG's inadequate security and breach of its duties
and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and Plaintiff's and
Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed. This action
seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences. Plaintiff,
on behalf of herself and all other Class members, assert claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
express contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, equitable
relief, and all other relief authorized by law, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received medical treatment at a DMG medical
facility.
The Defendant is a healthcare group with over 115 locations in and
around DuPage County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Ste. 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312.621.2000
Fax: 312.641.5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
- and -
Aron D. Robinson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ARON ROBINSON
2777 Summit Ave.
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 312.857.9050
Fax: 312.857.9054
EAGLE BANCORP: Jan. 20, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SHIVA STEIN, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
EAGLE BANCORP, INC., SUSAN G.
RIEL, RONALD D. PAUL, CHARLES D.
LEVINGSTON, JAMES H. LANGMEAD,
and LAURENCE E. BENSIGNOR,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:19-cv-06873-LGS
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
This notice is for all persons and entities who, during the period
between March 2, 2015 and July 17, 2019, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired Eagle Bancorp, Inc. ("Eagle") Common Stock
and/or Eagle Call Options, and/or wrote Eagle Put Options, and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN
THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"). Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized words used
in this Summary Notice are defined in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated June 28, 2021 ("Stipulation"), which is
available at www.EagleSecuritiesSettlement.com.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $7,500,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the
Action.
A hearing will be held on January 20, 2022 at 11:45 a.m. EST,
before the Honorable Lorna G. Schofield at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1106, 40 Foley Square,
New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Eagle Bancorp,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box
91107, Seattle WA, 98111, 833-677-1091. Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.EagleSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later
than January 12, 2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than December 30, 2021,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than December 30, 2021, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Eagle, or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the
proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91107
Seattle, WA 98111
833-677-1091
www.EagleSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Leanne Heine Solish, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com
By Order of the Court [GN]
EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION: 3rd Circuit Vacates Certification Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
in Philadelphia must reconsider his decision to certify an "issues"
class action by people who are suing a medical-licensing gatekeeper
after learning that their OB/GYN had lied about his identity since
1996, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Sept. 24.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit panel agreed with the
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates' (ECFMG)
attorneys at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius that the judge abused his
discretion by failing to consider whether class-wide issues
predominate over individual ones. The judge also failed to
"rigorously consider several factors" that the 3rd Circuit has
spelled out for determining whether certification of an issues
class is appropriate, the panel said.
"On remand, the Plaintiffs may be able to make such a showing, but
we will leave that inquiry to the District Court to consider,"
Circuit Judge Luis Restrepo wrote.
The decision was not the full reversal sought by ECFMG, a nonprofit
that certifies the educational credentials of foreign candidates
who hope to obtain medical residencies in the U.S. Even so, "we are
pleased that the 3rd Circuit vacated the district court's decision,
and agreed with us that there are important points that need to be
considered," Brian Shaffer of Morgan Lewis said in an email.
Patrick Thronson of Janet, Janet & Suggs, who argued the appeal for
the plaintiffs, said they are disappointed but "expect
certification to be granted again on remand."
The plaintiffs are suing ECFMG for negligent infliction of
emotional distress, alleging that it failed to adequately
investigate the credentials of the man they knew as Dr. John Nosa
Akoda.
According to the Sept. 24 decision, Oluwafemi Charles Igberase
successfully applied for certification in 1992 but did not receive
a residency. He started over by applying with another identity in
1994. ECFMG discovered the duplication in 1995 and revoked both
certifications.
Igberase reapplied as Akoda in 1996. He was certified a third time
and obtained a residency, but lost it in 2000 when the hospital
realized that his Social Security Number belonged to Igberase.
The hospital notified ECFMG, which investigated but concluded it
lacked sufficient evidence to revoke the 1996 credential.
Akoda eventually obtained his Maryland medical license and board
certification. In 2016, however, he pleaded guilty to use of a
false Social Security Number and received a 6-month sentence. His
license was revoked in 2017.
In the lawsuit against ECFMG, U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson
certified an issues class as to the elements of duty and breach,
leaving causation, damages and affirmative defenses for individual
resolution.
On Sept. 24, the 3rd Circuit clarified that an issues class can be
certified for elements of a cause of action, rejecting ECFMG's
argument that it must fully resolve liability.
However, Wolson had misread a 3rd Circuit case, Gates v. Rohm &
Haas, in finding that the Rule 23(b) predominance requirement does
not apply to issue classes, Restrepo wrote.
The panel recognized many reasons to support Wolson's ruling, but
also directed him to consider several "Gates factors" that might
weigh against it -- including the role played by third parties like
the hospitals and licensing board, and whether the same evidence
will have to be considered in the individualized trials. [GN]
EDWARD SLOAN: Faces Suit Over Allegedly 'Harassing' Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak reports that a proposed class action claims Edward Sloan
and Associates, Inc. has placed unlawful, "harassing" collection
calls to alleged debtors without their prior consent to do so.
The case claims the calls violated both the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), which governs the use of automatic dialing
equipment to place calls, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), which regulates how debt collectors may interact with
consumers.
According to the suit, Edward Sloan and Associates overstepped both
federal statutes by placing automated debt collection calls to a
Snyder, Texas resident without securing his prior express consent
to do so and even after he demanded that the calls cease.
The plaintiff claims to have begun receiving calls from the
defendant in June 2021 pursuant to an alleged medical bill
associated with a hospital visit. According to the suit, the
plaintiff, "[i]mmediately after the collection calls began,"
answered a call while at work and, after confirming his address,
requested that all further telephone calls cease.
Despite the plaintiff's request, the defendant continued placing
the "harassing collection calls," which always began with "a
lengthy period of dead air" before a representative was connected,
the lawsuit alleges. Per the suit, whenever the plaintiff did not
answer his phone, the defendant would leave the following
prerecorded voicemail:
"You have received this message due to a personal business matter
with Edward Sloan and Associates. For further information, please
return our call. 866-322-3802. You have received this message due
to a personal business matter with Edward Sloan and Associates.
This is the office of a debt collector and information obtained is
for the purpose of collecting a debt."
The case says Edward Sloan and Associates placed a total of at
least 20 collection calls to the plaintiff's cell phone after he
requested that the calls cease.
According to the suit, it is a violation of the TCPA to place
non-emergency calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice without the recipient's prior
express consent. Moreover, the FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from
placing calls at what is known to be an inconvenient time. The
complaint relays that any calls placed after the plaintiff
requested not to receive telephone communications were placed at a
time known to be inconvenient to the man.
The case further claims the defendant violated the FDCPA and a
provision of the Texas Finance Code by placing calls with the
intent to harass the plaintiff. Per the case, the debt collector's
"systematic[] calling" of the plaintiff's cell phone was both
"harassing and abusive."
The lawsuit goes on to claim that the defendant failed to meet the
FDCPA's requirement to send a validation notice to an alleged
debtor within five days of its initial communication with the
individual. According to the case, the plaintiff never received any
written communication from the defendant regarding his apparent
debt.
The lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the U.S. who has an
existing account with the defendant and to whose cell phone Edward
Sloan and Associates or a third party acting on its behalf placed a
phone call using an artificial or prerecorded voice in connection
with an alleged debt within the last four years and until the date
of class certification. [GN]
EISAI CO: Class Action Over Belviq Cancer Risk Dismissed By Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson at aboutlawsuits.com reports that a U.S. District
Judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed against Eisai, Arena
Pharmaceuticals and CVS, which sought class action status over the
failure to warn consumers about a cancer risk from Belviq, a weight
loss drug that was removed from the market last year.
Belviq (lorcaserin) was first introduced as prescription
weight-loss treatments in 2012, and was widely marketed as safe and
effective. However, following an analysis of post-marketing data, a
Belviq recall was issued in early 2020, due to an increased
incidence of pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer and
other injuries.
Eisai and Arena Pharmaceuticals now face dozens of Belviq cancer
lawsuits filed by former users diagnosed following use of the
medication, as well as a number of complaints that seek class
action status to pursue damages for former users who have not yet
diagnosed with cancer.
A complaint filed by Barbara Zottola in March 2020 sought to pursue
damages for all individuals who purchased Belviq or Belviq XR,
alleging that the putative class members were injured by paying the
full purchase price for the medication, since Eisai and Arena
Pharmaceuticals were not forthright about the cancer risk.
The drug makers filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit
over Belviq, arguing that Zottola failed to state a claim, due to
the lack of a cognizable injury and failure to assert that the
Defendants' conduct was "materially misleading."
In an opinion and order (PDF) issued on September 29, U.S. District
Judge Philip Halpern of the Southern District of New York, agreed
with the drug makers and granted a motion to dismiss the case.
"Plaintiff fails to specify a misrepresentation or omission made by
Defendants," Judge Halpern wrote. "Plaintiff pleads generally that
Defendants did not disclose the Medications' cancer risks to
consumers. But this type of vague allegation, without more, is
insufficient to plead a fraud or fraudulent concealment claim."
The ruling only applies to this one case, and not the Belviq
litigation as a whole, which is currently spread before various
different judges in U.S. District Courts nationwide, after the U.S.
Judicial Panel in Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decided not to
centralize cases during a hearing in August 2021.
Rather than centralizing the Belviq cancer claims before one judge
for coordinated pretrial proceedings, the parties are informally
coordinating efforts to reduce duplicative discovery into common
issues and move the litigation forward. However, lawsuits are filed
by individuals diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer,
lung cancer and other injuries, it is likely that several hundred
individual claims may ultimately be included in the litigation.
[GN]
ELEMENT SIX: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Element Six
Technologies (OR) Corp., et al. The case is styled as Emanuel
Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Element Six Technologies (OR) Corp., Lightbox Jewelry
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-08190 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Element Six -- https://www.e6.com/ -- is a world leader in
synthetic diamond and tungsten carbide supermaterials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action in Israel Over Job Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Zev Stub, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed in Israel against Facebook charges that
ads on the social media giant violate the Equal Employment
Opportunity Act, which prohibits the posting of discriminatory job
ads.
Israeli employment law, like that in most Western countries, states
that a job advertisement cannot discriminate by age, gender, race,
political beliefs or other variables. The law allows for anyone
affected by such discrimination to be compensated for NIS 50,000,
without proof of damage.
"Years ago that meant that a company couldn't write explicitly in a
job ad that it was only looking for, say, white males aged 25-40,"
explained attorney Dr. Matan Gutman, who filed the case at the Tel
Aviv Regional Labor Court. "But Facebook's ad system allows
companies to discriminate in a more elegant way -- by offering the
options to target only certain types of people. That would be
equivalent to a newspaper offering its clients the option to target
only certain readers, which would clearly be prohibited. But
Facebook publishes thousands of such job ads in Israel every
year."
In the United States and Canada, civil rights advocacy groups
including the American Civil Liberties Union have filed similar
class-action suits against Facebook in 2018 and 2019, charging that
its platform allowed employers to target ads based on categories
like race, national origin, age and gender. In both cases, a
settlement was reached in which Facebook committed to two policy
changes, Gutman said.
First, when users begin setting up a paid ad in Facebook's Ads
Manager, they are prompted to say whether the ad relates to
employment or other 'sensitive' categories. If answered in the
affirmative, the platform will block the user from targeting
viewers based on age, gender or race.
Second, the Facebook Ad Library, which allows users to search ads
throughout the company's network, can be filtered by employment, so
that such ads can be easily monitored.
These measures were only implemented in the US and Canada, where
the suits were filed, and not in other countries with similar laws,
Gutman noted, adding that Facebook reportedly also paid penalties
of millions of dollars to the advocacy groups that filed the
claims.
Gutman and his partner, Adv. Nir Friedman, have filed a similar
claim in Israel, but with one difference. Israel's laws provide for
statutory compensation of NIS 50,000 per person affected, a sum
that could theoretically reach billions of shekels. The statute of
limitations for such violations is seven years, meaning all ads
posted since 2014 could be potentially punishable.
These measures were only implemented in the US and Canada, where
the suits were filed, and not in other countries with similar laws,
Gutman noted, adding that Facebook reportedly also paid penalties
of millions of dollars to the advocacy groups that filed the
claims.
Gutman and his partner, Adv. Nir Friedman, have filed a similar
claim in Israel, but with one difference. Israel's laws provide for
statutory compensation of NIS 50,000 per person affected, a sum
that could theoretically reach billions of shekels. The statute of
limitations for such violations is seven years, meaning all ads
posted since 2014 could be potentially punishable. [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Worcester, Esq., and Roger A. Lane, Esq., of Holland &
Knight, disclosed that in a Sept. 23, 2021, decision that may make
it easier for Delaware boards of directors to obtain an early
dismissal of derivative suits brought against them, the Delaware
Supreme Court in United Food and Commercial Workers Union v.
Zuckerberg et al., No. 404, 2020, announced a new three-part test
as the "universal test for assessing whether demand should be
excused as futile." In so doing, it blended the two traditional
demand futility tests from Aronson v. Lewis and Rales v. Blasband.
Background
The underlying case involved the fallout from challenges to a 2016
decision by the board of directors of Facebook Inc. to approve a
stock reclassification that would allow Facebook Chairman and CEO
Mark Zuckerberg to sell most of his Facebook stock while
maintaining voting control of the company. After its approval, more
than a dozen complaints were filed challenging the plan, claiming
that the board violated its fiduciary duties by negotiating and
approving a purportedly one-sided deal that put Zuckerberg's
interests ahead of those of Facebook. These cases were consolidated
into one class action but, shortly before trial, Zuckerberg
requested that the reclassification be withdrawn, which mooted the
fiduciary duty class action. Another stockholder then brought a
derivative suit after the settlement of the class action,
essentially seeking to recoup the $80-plus million that Facebook
had spent on attorneys' fees.
Before bringing suit, the stockholder did not make demand under
Court of Chancery Rule 23.1.
Duty of Care Claims Insufficient to Establish Demand Futility
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants breached their duty of
care in negotiating and approving the reclassification. Both the
plaintiff and defendants agreed that the Aronson test applied
because the complaint challenged a decision made by the same board
that would consider the litigation demand. In such circumstances,
demand is excused as futile if the complaint alleges particularized
facts that raise a reasonable doubt that 1) the directors are
disinterested and independent or 2) the challenged transaction was
otherwise the product of a valid business judgment.
Facebook's charter, however, contained a Section 102(b)(7) clause,
which insulated the directors from duty of care claims such that
the defendants faced no risk of personal liability. In such
circumstances, the Court of Chancery held that exculpated care
claims do not excuse demand under Aronson's second prong.
On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the language in Aronson's
second prong focused on whether "the challenged transaction was . .
. the product of a valid business judgment," regardless of whether
the directors faced substantial liability. The Delaware Supreme
Court disagreed, and after reviewing past cases applying Aronson,
determined that this prong used the standard of review as a proxy
for whether the board could impartially consider a litigation
demand. The reason it likely did so was that Aronson was decided
before Section 102(b)(7) was adopted in 1995, such that prior to
that, if care violations rebutted the business judgment rule, then
directors would be exposed to a substantial likelihood of
liability. Consequently, the Supreme Court rejected the argument
that "rebutting the business judgment rule should automatically
render directors incapable of impartially considering a litigation
demand." As a result, the Supreme Court also confirmed that demand
is not futile under the second prong of Aronson simply because
entire fairness applies to a controlling stockholder transaction.
In affirming the Court of Chancery's decision, the Supreme Court
reiterated that disinterested and independent directors are in the
best position to manage the corporation's affairs and that they
could decide that it is not in the corporation's best interest to
spend the time and money to pursue a claim, even one that is likely
to succeed.
Adoption of Universal Three-Part Demand Futility Test
The Supreme Court also agreed with the Court of Chancery that it
was time "to move on from Aronson entirely." It adopted the Court
of Chancery's three-part test, which combined the Rales and Aronson
tests, as the universal test for whether demand should be excused
as futile. Thus, going forward, courts should ask the following
three questions on a director-by-director basis when evaluating
allegations of demand futility:
(i) whether the director received a material personal benefit from
the alleged misconduct that is the subject of the litigation
demand;
(ii) whether the director faces a substantial likelihood of
liability on any of the claims that would be the subject of the
litigation demand; and
(iii) whether the director lacks independence from someone who
received a material personal benefit from the alleged misconduct
that would be the subject of the litigation demand or who would
face a substantial likelihood of liability on any of the claims
that are the subject of the litigation demand.
If the answer to any of the questions is "yes" for at least half of
the members of the demand board, then demand is excused as futile.
According to the Supreme Court:
The purpose of the demand-futility analysis is to assess whether
the board should be deprived of its decision-making authority
because there is reason to doubt that the directors would be able
to bring their impartial business judgment to bear on a litigation
demand. That is a different consideration than whether the
derivative claim is strong or weak because the challenged
transaction is likely to pass or fail the applicable standard of
review. It is helpful to keep those inquiries separate.
Concluding Thoughts
According to the Delaware Supreme Court, the three-part test is a
refined test that is "consistent with and enhances Aronson, Rales,
and their progeny," and as a result, cases "properly construing
Aronson, Rales, and progeny remain good law." Even so, the case
makes clear that depriving the board of its ability to control
litigation involving the corporation should be the exception, not
the rule, and that as long as a corporation has adopted a Section
102(b)(7) provision, duty of care allegations will be insufficient
to plead demand futility. [GN]
FRED MEYER: Littler Attorneys Discuss FCRA Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garrick Chan, Esq., and Rod Fliegel, Esq., of Littler, in an
article for JDSupra, report that as predicted four years ago, class
action lawsuits against employers under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) continue to spike, including class actions targeting
background check disclosures. Before procuring a background check
from a consumer reporting agency, the employer must disclose its
intention to do so and obtain the individual's authorization (known
as the "stand-alone" disclosure requirement). The plaintiff's bar
has racked up significant settlements in cases alleging that the
employer's disclosure includes so-called "extraneous" information
and thus violates the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement.
To date, only the Ninth Circuit has opined on what information is
and is not extraneous, most recently in March 2020 in Walker v.
Fred Meyer, Inc. Although the Ninth Circuit revived the plaintiff's
lawsuit, the employer recently prevailed at the trial court on the
crucial issue of whether any violation was "willful," i.e.,
reckless or intentional. "Willfulness" is a pivotal issue because
statutory damages are available for such violations without any
corresponding showing of actual damages.
The Litigation
In Walker, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant acted
willfully when it provided him with a disclosure that included
alleged extraneous information, i.e., failed to comply with the
FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement. The trial court granted
the defendant's motion to dismiss, but the Ninth Circuit reversed,
holding, as an issue of first impression, that the last two
paragraphs of the defendant's disclosure (each containing one
sentence) were extraneous. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that,
although the defendant included this text in "good faith," it
"could pull the applicant's attention away from" the privacy rights
protected by the FCRA by calling their attention to the rights that
they have to inspect the background check company's files. The
Ninth Circuit did not consider whether the violation was willful.
On remand, the defendant argued that its violation was not willful
because in March 2017, when the plaintiff applied, the stand-alone
disclosure requirement was ambiguous. The magistrate judge agreed
and recommended granting summary judgment to the employer,
emphasizing that the Ninth Circuit's opinion defined the term
"disclosure" in the FCRA for the very first time. On September 24,
2021, the district court judge adopted the magistrate's
recommendation and dismissed the case.
Takeaways for Employers
A second appeal in this years-long battle is virtually certain.
Meanwhile, the magistrate's order provides a useful guidepost for
trial courts assessing purported willful violations of the
stand-alone disclosure rule, reinforcing how (1) the text of the
disclosure rule is susceptible to some interpretation, not
unambiguous, and (2) the determination of willfulness turns on the
law that existed at the time of the underlying violation (i.e.,
when the employer presented the plaintiff with the alleged
deficient disclosure), not the time of the lawsuit itself.
Beyond FCRA class actions, background checks continue to raise
thorny compliance issues nationwide, especially those involving
criminal background checks. Employers thus must continue to monitor
the proliferation of new and amended "ban the box" laws.
Consultation with knowledgeable employment law counsel is
recommended to help mitigate the many risks. [GN]
GETSWIFT TECHNOLOGIES: Discloses Details of Proposed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
GetSwift Technologies Limited (NEO:GSW) ("GetSwift" or the
"Company"), a leading provider of last mile SaaS logistics
technology, as a result of market regulatory requirements announced
that has disclosed details of its previously announced Heads of
Agreement (HOA) for a settlement with law firm Phi Finney McDonald
and Therium Capital Management (Australia) Pty Ltd. and Mr.
Raffaele Webb (the "Applicant") in connection with the class action
proceedings before the Federal Court of Australia (the "Court").
GetSwift's Board of Directors, including each independent director,
believe the terms of the proposed settlement under the HOA are in
the best interests of The Company and its shareholders. The HOA
contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing by GetSwift
Limited or Mr. Joel Macdonald, a President and Director of The
Company, and neither GetSwift Limited nor Mr. Macdonald or any of
its executives acknowledges any liability or wrongdoing by entering
into the HOA.
GetSwift expects that the HOA and the final settlement will enable
The Company and its current management to focus on growth,
innovation, product launches, and market capture. The terms of the
proposed settlement are expected to eliminate uncertainty and
expense associated with this litigation matter and ideally realize
an appropriate market capitalization for The Company, enabling it
to use resources that would otherwise have been devoted to
litigation for continued expansion, benefitting all stakeholders
including shareholders, clients, partners, the class and
employees.
Terms of the settlement are as follows:
The Settlement Sum to be paid by The Company is the aggregate
amount derived from the following Settlement Formula, with each
component amount ("settlement payment"), if payable, to be paid at
or by the dates and times set out below. A reference in this
Schedule to an event occurring on or by a particular date means on
or by 5pm in New York, New York, United States of America, on that
day.
A first settlement payment of AU$1.5m, to be paid in instalments as
follows:
AU$500,000 within 7 days of the date of execution of the Deed;
AU$500,000 due by 7 October 2021; and
AU$500,000 due by 7 January 2022.
During the term of 3 years from the date of the parties executing a
Deed of Settlement ("Fundraising Term"), settlement payments
equaling 8% of any funds raised by The Company by way of capital
raising, with each such amount to be paid within 6 weeks of the
amount being collected by The Company.
During the Fundraising Term, The Company is to raise capital
equivalent to 10% to 20% of its pre-raising market capitalisation
at the point in time that:
it first hits any of the following market capitalisation levels (in
CAD):
$100m;
$250m;
$400m; and
the market capitalisation remains at the level in 3.a.i – iii (as
applicable) on average for 4 weeks following the date it first hit
that market capitalization.
In any of the three 12-month periods comprising the Fundraising
Term, if no funds are raised by capital raising:
the Respondents and/or The Company will be required to make a
settlement payment equal to 5% of The Company Group's revenue from
contracts with customers ("revenue") during the 12- month period
ending on the most recent quarterly reporting date prior to the
conclusion of the relevant 12-month period ("revenue percentage")
within 4 weeks of expiry of the period; however
if 4(a) applies in respect of the first year of the Fundraising
Term, the required settlement payment under 4(a) will be not be
payable until the conclusion of the second year of the Fundraising
Term.
Subject to clause 6 below, during any of the three 12-month periods
comprising the Fundraising Term, for any capital raising undertaken
by The Company where the amount of funds raised is less than 20% of
The Company's pre-raising market capitalisation, then:
the Respondents and/or The Company will be required to make a
settlement payment calculated on the same revenue percentage basis
as clause 4 above within 4 weeks of expiry of the relevant 12-month
period; however
the amount payable will be discounted based on the amount of funds
raised applying the following formula:
the revenue percentage payable will be the percentage equivalent to
25% of the percentage amount by which the relevant capital raising
is less than 20% of The Company's market capitalisation; such that
(by way of example);
if the capital raising is 10% of The Company's market
capitalisation, the revenue percentage payable is 2.5%; whereas
if the capital raising is 15% of The Company's market
capitalisation, the revenue percentage payable is 1.25%.
If The Company conducts more than one capital raising during any of
the 3 twelve-month periods comprising the Fundraising Term, then
for the purpose of the calculation of any revenue percentage
settlement payment for that period, the two or more capital
raisings will be treated as one capital raising. For instance, if:
The Company conducted two capital raisings during a single 12-month
period for amounts of 5% and 10% of The Company's market
capitalisation at the relevant times;
The Company's market capitalisation was CAD200m at the time of the
first capital raising and CAD250m at the time of the second capital
raising; and
this resulted in raisings of CAD10m and CAD25m respectively; then
the weighted average revenue payment would be calculated premised
on the extent to which CAD35m (the combined amount raised) fell
short of being 20% of CAD225m (the weighted average market
capitalisation); and
the relevant percentage per (d) would be about 15.5%, such that the
revenue percentage payment for that 12-month period would be a
single payment of about 1.11% of annual revenue.
All payments are to be made in Australian dollars. The rate of
exchange to be used in calculating the amount of currency
equivalent in Australian dollars is the closing exchange rate
reported in The Australian Financial Review on the preceding
Business Day before payment is made. [GN]
GREENWICH LOGISTICS: Fazier Sues Over Unpaid Vacation Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quinten Fazier, individually, and on behalf of Aggrieved Employees
pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act v.
GREENWICH LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV35080 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 22, 2021), is brought with regards to
the Defendants maintained policies by which employees, including
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees, earned and accrued vacation
wages, seeking to recover all available remedies under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004,
including, but not limited to, civil penalties and attorney's fees
and costs.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants systematically stripped
their employees of earned and accrued vacation time wages, earned
pursuant to the Defendants' own policies, and failed and/or refused
to pay the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees wages equivalent
to this earned and accrued vacation time. Having stripped the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved employees of earned wages, the Defendants
thereafter issued inaccurate wage statements which misstated the
wages duly earned by its employees. As a result, the Defendants
violated California Labor Code sections.
The Plaintiff earned vacation wages pursuant to the Defendants'
policies. However, in or around July 2020, without warning or
explanation, the Defendants stripped employees, including the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees, of their earned and accrued
vacation wages. These employees did not utilize this earned and
accrued vacation time and were not paid their earned and accrued
vacation time as wages. Shortly thereafter, in or around August
2020, Defendants terminated, discharged and/or laid off the vast
majority of its California employees. The Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees the wage equivalent of their
earned and accrued vacation wages upon termination of their
employment. To date, Defendants have willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees all wages due to him upon
termination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants.
Greenwich, a Delaware limited liability corporation, was and is an
employer whose employees are engaged in the State of California,
including the County of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
Matthew W. Dietz, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW, APC
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: (310) 622-4278
Fax: (855) 786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
mdietz@blackstonepc.com
GROUP HEALTH: Refuses to Cover Autism Treatment, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Wahlberg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
Dane County couple is suing Group Health Cooperative of South
Central Wisconsin, saying the HMO refused to cover treatment as
required by state and federal law for their 13-year-old daughter
who has autism spectrum disorder.
The suit, by Tony Hensen and Angela Midthun-Hensen of the town of
Vienna, near Waunakee, was filed Sept. 27 in U.S. District Court in
Madison as a class-action complaint on behalf of children similarly
denied coverage of autism treatment at age 10 or older.
"GHC is administering its plans for its own financial benefit
rather than the benefit of the plan members, subscribers, and
beneficiaries," the suit says.
Marty Anderson, chief strategy and business development officer at
GHC, said the health plan is complying with the state's mandate for
autism coverage. "Determinations are made by physicians and are
based upon patient medical history, medical records, insurance plan
benefit terms and objective clinical evidence-based research and
related criteria," he said.
The girl, identified only as K.H., started speech therapy in May
2017 and requested coverage of occupational therapy in October
2018, according to the lawsuit. GHC denied coverage of both in
January 2019, saying speech therapy was not evidence-based for
children with autism 10 and older and occupational therapy is
considered experimental for autism, the suit says.
GHC agreed to start covering some speech therapy for K.H. last
month, however, the suit says. The HMO has also agreed to cover
occupational therapy, for which K.H. is on a waiting list, Paul
Kinne, the family's attorney, told the Wisconsin State Journal.
The lawsuit seeks $18,000 for speech therapy the family paid for
and wasn't covered after K.H. turned 10, Kinne said. She stopped
occupational therapy because the family couldn't afford it, he
said.
The lawsuit seeks compensation for other families in similar
situations. Kinne said he didn't have estimates of how many
families are involved or what the total amount might be.
Wisconsin requires insurers to cover certain treatments for autism,
including intensive-level, evidence-based behavioral therapies for
children ages 2 to 9 and non-intensive-level services with no age
limit. "This treatment refers to interactive approaches aimed at
building skills that help the child reduce problem behaviors. It is
also used to improve communication, social, self-care, and learning
skills," according to the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of
Insurance.
Two federal laws, including a mental health parity act adopted in
2008, also require such coverage, the lawsuit says.
Anderson said he couldn't confirm that GHC recently decided to
cover speech and occupational therapy for K.H.
"Our medical management team maintains policies for various
coverages that are based on our internal medical expertise as well
as external studies and independent third-party criteria for
coverage," he said. "These medical policies are frequently reviewed
and updated based on the best medical evidence available."
Midthun-Hensen has GHC insurance through her job with the Verona
School District. GHC denied an appeal by the family in April 2019,
and an independent review organization denied an external review in
September 2019, the suit says. [GN]
HEALTHEX CORP: Croston Hits Misclassification, Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Croston on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Healthex Corp. and
Keith Kearney, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02112, (S.D. Ohio,
September 27, 2021), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for willful
violations of the overtime wage provision under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio labor laws.
Healthex employed Croston as a driver, providing pharmaceutical
courier services between Pharmerica, a pharmacy, and its customers
from approximately April 2019 through approximately May 2021.
Croston was compensated on a per-route basis, regardless of how
many hours he worked in a given workweek. He typically worked 55
hours or more per week, eight-hour shifts, seven days per week,
plus additional six-hour shifts of three to four days per week.
Healthex allegedly classified him as an independent contractor,
thus denying him overtime pay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifford P. Bendau II, Esq.
THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
6000 Freedom Square Dr.
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
Facsimile: (216) 642-5814
Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com
HYRECAR INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against HyreCar Inc. ("HyreCar" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: HYRE) and reminds investors of the October
26, 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 HyreCar stock
or options between May 14, 2021 and August 10, 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/HYRE.
Cannot view this image? Visit:
https://orders.newsfilecorp.com/files/6455/98385_dbc8090244ee99de_001.jpg
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)
HyreCar had materially understated its insurance reserves; (2)
HyreCar had systematically failed to pay valid insurance claims
incurred prior to the Class Period; (3) HyreCar had incurred
significant expenses transitioning to its new third-party insurance
claims administrator and processing claims incurred from prior
periods; (4) HyreCar had failed to appropriately price risk in its
insurance products and was experiencing elevated claims incidence
as a result; (5) HyreCar had been forced to dramatically reform its
claims underwriting, policies, and procedures in response to
unacceptably high claims severity and customer complaints; and (6)
as a result, HyreCar's operations and prospects were misrepresented
because HyreCar was not on track to meet the financial estimates
provided to investors during the Class Period, and such estimates
lacked a reasonable basis in fact, including HyreCar's purported
gross margin, earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization ("EBITDA"), and net loss trajectories.
On this news, the price of HyreCar stock fell nearly 50% in a
single day to close at $9.85 per share on August 11, 2021, on
abnormally high volume of over 5.8 million shares traded.
As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous declines in the market value of HyreCar securities,
plaintiff and other members of the Class (defined below) have
suffered significant losses and damages for which they seek redress
through this action.
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 Hyre's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of November 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation ("Hyzon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DCRB,
HYZN) from February 9, 2021 through September 27, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1934.
If you purchased Hyzon securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Hyzon Motors Inc
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit visit or contact Rujul Patel toll
free at (877) 779-1414 or rpatel@bernlieb.com
According to the complaint, Hyzon, issued materially false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Hyzon specifically failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Hyzon
misrepresented the nature of its customer contracts and severely
embellished its deals and partnerships with customers; (2) Hyzon
could not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated
timeline; and (3) as a result, defendants public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On September 9, 2021, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Hyzon Motors to supply up to 500 hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles to Shanghai logistics company" regarding the Company's
deals and delivery schedule.
On this news, Hyzon's stock shot up 29% on the pre-market
announcement that it secured a major new deal for 500 trucks
(including 100 orders in 2021) from a new Chinese customer,
Shanghai HongYun.
On September 28, 2021, market analyst Blue Orca Capital published a
report about the Company (the "Blue Orca Report") that, among other
things, disclosed in pertinent part, regarding the supposedly major
customer appears to be just an empty shell entity.
On this news, Hyzon shares fell $2.58 per share, or 28%, to close
at $6.63 per share on September 28, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Hyzon securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/hyzonmotorsinc-hyzn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-443/
or contact Rujul Patel toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
rpatel@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Nov. 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Hyzon Motors, Inc. ("Hyzon"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HYZN) and reminds investors of the
November 29, 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 Hyzon stock
or options between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 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/HYZN.
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)
Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its "customer" contracts
and severely embellished its "deals" and "partnerships" with
customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its announced vehicles in
2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
On September 28, 2021, market analyst Blue Orca Capital published a
report about the Company (the "Blue Orca Report") that, among other
things, alleges that Hyzon's largest customer appears to be a fake
Chinese shell company.
On this news, Hyzon shares fell $2.58 per share, or 28%, to close
at $6.63 per share on September 28, 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 Hyzon's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of November 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Oct. 3
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Hyzon Motors Inc. ("Hyzon") (NASDAQ:HYZN) f/k/a
Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation ("Decarbonization")
(NASDAQ:DCRB) on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
Hyzonsecurities between February 9, 2021 and September 27, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Hyzon
securitiesduring the Class Period may, no later than November 29,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453; toll free at (844)
887-9500; via e-mail atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick
https://www.ktmc.com/hyzon-motors-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=hyzon
Hyzon is a hydrogen mobility company that manufactures
hydrogen-powered commercial vehicles and fuel cell systems. It
focuses on developing medium and heavy-duty trucks, as well as city
and coach buses. On July 16, 2021, the merger between
Decarbonization and Hyzon Motors USA Inc. f/k/a Hyzon Motors Inc.
closed. On that date, Decarbonization changed its name to Hyzon
Motors Inc.
The Class Period commences on February 9, 2021, when Hyzon issued a
press release entitled "Hyzon Motors, the Leading Hydrogen Fuel
Cell Heavy Vehicle Company, Announces Business Combination with
Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation; Combined Company
Expected to be Listed on Nasdaq," which touted Hyzon's deals and
delivery schedule. Throughout the Class Period, Hyzon continued to
tout its customer contracts, deals and partnerships, including a
September 9, 2021 press release entitled "Hyzon Motors to supply up
to 500 hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles to Shanghai logistics
company."
The truth emerged on September 28, 2021, when market analyst, Blue
Orca Capital, published a report about Hyzon which disclosed that
Hyzon's largest customer, Shanghai HongYun, is a "Fake-Looking
Chinese Shell Entity Formed 3 Days Before Deal Announced." The
report also disclosed that Hyzon's next largest customer, Hiringa
Energy ("Hiringa"), a tiny New Zealand startup company, is not
really a customer. Rather, Hiringa is a "channel partner" for
Hyzon's vehicles. Finally, the report stated that "Hiringa will
account for 24% of the [Hyzon]'s projected deliveries in 2021. Yet,
Hiringa stated point blank that no deliveries would be taken in
2021," which contradicts Hyzon's representations during the Class
Period.
Following this news, Hyzon's share price fell $2.58 per share, or
28%, to close at $6.63 per share on September 28, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Hyzon was misrepresenting the nature of its
"customer" contracts and severely embellished its "deals" and
"partnerships" with customers; (2) Hyzon could not deliver its
announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline; and (3) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Hyzon investors may, no later than November 29, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
HYZON MOTORS: Robbins Geller Reminds of November 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Hyzon
Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation
(NASDAQ: HYZN; HYZNW) publicly traded securities between February
9, 2021 and September 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until November 29, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. The
Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit charges Hyzon Motors and certain
of its top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit was commenced on
September 30, 2021 in the Western District of New York and is
captioned Kauffmann v. Hyzon Motors Inc. f/k/a Decarbonization Plus
Acquisition Corporation, No. 21-cv-06612.
"Phantom Big-Name Customers Suggest Overstated Orders and Financial
Projections."
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Hyzon Motors 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 Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than November 29, 2021.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: On February 9, 2021, Hyzon Motors issued a press
release entitled "Hyzon Motors, the Leading Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Heavy Vehicle Company, Announces Business Combination with
Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation; Combined Company
Expected to be Listed on Nasdaq." On July 16, 2021, the merger
between Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation - a special
purpose acquisition vehicle, also known as a "SPAC" or blank-check
company - and Hyzon Motors USA Inc. f/k/a Hyzon Motors Inc. closed.
On that date, Decarbonization Plus Acquisition Corporation changed
its name to Hyzon Motors Inc. and on July 19, 2021, Hyzon Motors
common stock began trading on NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "HYZN"
and Hyzon Motors warrants began trading under the ticker symbol
"HYZNW." Before the merger, Hyzon Motors securities traded on
NASDAQ under the ticker symbols "DCRBU" for Units, "DCRB" for
common stock, and "DCRBW" for warrants.
The Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) Hyzon Motors was misrepresenting the
nature of its "customer" contracts and severely embellished its
"deals" and "partnerships" with customers; (ii) Hyzon Motors could
not deliver its announced vehicles in 2021, on its stated timeline;
and (iii) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
On September 28, 2021, market analyst Blue Orca Capital published a
report about Hyzon Motors disclosing, among other things, that: (i)
"Hyzon's Largest Customer is a Fake-Looking Chinese Shell Entity
Formed 3 Days Before Deal Announced"; (ii) "Channel Checks Reveal
Next Largest Customer Not Really a Customer"; and (iii) "Phantom
Big-Name Customers Suggest Overstated Orders and Financial
Projections." On this news, Hyzon Motors shares fell approximately
28%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force
represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice
in this rapidly developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Hyzon Motors
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Hyzon Motors 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 Hyzon Motors
class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of
its choice to litigate the Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the
Hyzon Motors class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff.[GN]
IFINEX INC: RICO Class Action Lawsuit Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
City Telegraph reports that state regulators aren't the only ones
going after the cryptosphere right now. Group actions are also on
the rise. Indeed, like Coinbase, the iFinex group (Bitfinex and
Tether) is targeted by a class action. After almost 2 years of
procedure, it has just experienced a favorable rebound.
2019: the year of all worries for Bitfinex
It was the New York attorney general who filed a lawsuit against
the iFinex group in April 2019. The complaint accused them of
illegally concealing massive financial losses, including the
allocation of a loan of 850 million. of dollars in USDT by Tether
to Bitfinex. This huge cash flow shortfall is said to have been
caused by the use of Crypto Capital's services by Bitfinex.
In addition, the companies Bitfinex and Tether, after being ordered
to produce all the documents relating to their financial exchanges,
obtained on appeal the suspension of this injunction from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York. Finally in February 2021,
the iFinex group finally reached an agreement with the New York
attorney general's office to ratify the case without having to
admit the facts. Thus, the companies paid a fine of $ 18.5
million.
In October, it is a group action (class action) which was filed in
New York against iFinex for acts of fraud, of market manipulation
of digital assets and complicity of laundering money. As such, the
Bitfinex exchange is accused of being at the origin of a
manipulation of the price of Bitcoin.
The plaintiffs claimed the sum of 1.4 billion dollars from the
group iFinex, in only damages. In addition, this class action was
based on violations of the law on organizations corrupted and
influenced by racketeers (RICO law). Finally, the Tether branch is
accused of false claims that the USDT stablecoin was fully backed
against the US dollar.
2021: a small victory for Bitfinex and Tether
The New York District Judge, Katherine Polk Failla, by an order of
September 28, 2021 partially granted the requests for
inadmissibility made by iFinex. Indeed, out of the 12 requests made
by the plaintiffs in the class action, the order rejects 6 and
partially one . For example, all of the class action claims based
on breaches of the RICO Act were rejected. Thus, Bitfinex and the
other defendants will not have to respond to the charges of
organized crime.
The judge subsequently turned to the plaintiffs' argument relating
to the violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. This law aims to
limit anti-competitive acts in the business world. In particular,
it prohibits any illicit agreement restricting trade and penalizes
any abuse of a dominant position. On this point, the ordinance only
partially rejects the request:
ALTHOUGH THE COURT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENT
THAT THE MERE PURCHASE OF A PRODUCT IN A MARKET SUBJECT TO PRICE
MANIPULATION IS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE ANTITRUST PREJUDICE, IT
ULTIMATELY CONCLUDES THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE SUFFICIENT ALLEGED
FACTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRICE MANIPULATION BY WHICH THEY CLAIM
TO HAVE BEEN HARMED WAS THE PRODUCT OF AN ANTI-COMPETITIVE
PRACTICE. "
Katherine Polk Failla
Finally, the iFinex group is enthusiastic about the idea of moving
on to the debate phase in this case, which it considers a "clumsy
attempt to steal money"
Bitfinex and Tether have until October 28, 2021 to respond to the
claims of the claimants upheld by the judge. To be continued! But
in any case, the group iFinex does not seem ready to let go. [GN]
IM SERVICES: Roberts Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Toney Roberts, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. IM SERVICES GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00395-BLW (D. Idaho, Oct. 4, 2021), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act with regards to the Defendants practice of
not paying its inspectors overtime because it pays the same flat
day rate regardless of the number of hours worked.
The Defendant required the Plaintiff to work more than forty hours
in a workweek without overtime compensation. The Defendant
misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The
Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt
employees to be compensated for all hours in excess of forty in a
workweek at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an inspector from August
2019 to March 2021.
IM Services Group, LLC is an engineering company that provides
turn-key engineering, design, and construction management services
to clients in a range of industries, including the pipeline
construction industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven Fisher, Esq.
CRAIG SWAPP & ASSOCIATES
3071 E. Franklin Road, Ste. 302
Meridian, ID 83642
Phone: (208) 331-0167
Fax: (208) 375-2005
Email: steven.fisher@craigswapp.com
IRWIN NATURALS: Asaro Files Mislabeling Suit Over Health Supplement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Asaro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Irwin Naturals, Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-05340 (E.D. N.Y., September 27, 2021), seeks injunctive
relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust
enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of New York general business
laws.
Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes health supplements
under the brand "Irwin Naturals." Asaro purchased the Irwin
Naturals - Power to Sleep PM. He claims that, contrary to its brand
name containing the word "natural," its labelling contains a number
of synthetic ingredients. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Tel: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
J. M. SMUCKER: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Cooking Spray
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action
claims Crisco-branded "Butter - No-Stick Spray" is misleadingly
labeled in that the product contains no butter.
According to the 14-page case, a reasonable consumer, upon viewing
the Crisco cooking spray's label, would expect the product to
contain butter instead of butter substitutes. The suit alleges,
however, that the spray "does not contain any butter" and is made
instead with mostly canola oil.
Per the lawsuit, defendant J.M. Smucker Company has sold more of
the Crisco product, and at higher prices, than it would have absent
the allegedly misleading labeling. Because of the lack of butter,
the Crisco spray is worth "materially less" than its value as
represented by the defendant, the case says.
Consumers prefer butter to alternatives such as canola oil "[f]or
numerous reasons," including that butter is natural, does not
contain trans fats, is "rich in nutrients" such as Vitamins A and D
and "has a creamy, sweet taste," the lawsuit states. According to
the suit, the FDA has noted that when a food is labeled with
"butter," reasonable consumers expect "that whenever butter could
be used in a product, it would be."
The case claims that although consumers expect the Crisco "Butter -
No-Stick Spray" product to contain butter, it is made mostly with
canola oil and contains no butter at all. Per the lawsuit, the
spray is required under food labeling regulations to be identified
as "an artificially butter flavored no-stick spray." While the
front label of the Crisco product states that the spray contains
"natural and artificial flavor," this statement is "insufficient"
to inform consumers of the absence of butter, the suit attests:
"First, the statement is smaller than what is required by FDA
regulations. Second, the font does not contrast with the background
color, making it difficult to notice, and if noticed, to read.
Third, the 'natural and artificial flavor' statement is not linked
to the Product's characterizing flavor, which appears to be butter.
Consumers are not told by this statement the Product does not
contain butter, especially in light of the pat of butter in the
skillet in the center of the label. Fourth, the Product contains
beta carotene, to make it look like the golden hue of butter."
The case alleges the Crisco product amounts to an imitation of
butter given it "is a substitute for and resembles another food
[butter] but is nutritionally inferior to that food." Per the suit,
the Crisco product lacks the calcium found in butter and contains
"none of the ingredients required by the standard of identity for
butter" yet mimics butter's physical properties, such as preventing
food from sticking to a pan.
The filing adds that the Crisco brand, which has been around for "a
hundred years," has historically "sought to emulate butter."
Moreover, consumers are further misled by the "Butter"
representation on the product's label given the defendant sells an
olive oil no-stick spray under the Crisco brand that contains olive
oil, the complaint claims.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in Illinois, Iowa or Arkansas who
purchased the Crisco Butter - No-Stick spray during the statute of
limitations period. [GN]
JUDSON ENTERPRISES: Houghton Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Judson Enterprises,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jennifer Benay Houghton, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Judson Enterprises,
Inc., Does 1 - 20, Case No. 34-2021-00308598-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 22, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Judson Enterprises, Inc., doing business as K-Designers, Inc. --
https://www.k-designers.com/ -- provide home remodeling, new
windows, siding, entry doors, walk-in tubs, gutters, and bathroom
remodeling services in 17 states across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Oct. 3 disclosed that class action complaints
have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following
companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you
suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI)
Class Period: August 4, 2016 - July 27, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Activision
Blizzard, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Activision Blizzard
discriminated against women and minority employees; (2) Activision
Blizzard fostered a pervasive "frat boy" workplace culture that
continues to thrive; (3) numerous complaints about unlawful
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation were made to human
resources personnel and executives which went unaddressed; (4) the
pervasive culture of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
would result in serious impairments to Activision Blizzard's
operations; (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
greater risk of regulatory and legal scrutiny and enforcement,
including that which would have a material adverse effect; (6)
Activision Blizzard failed to inform shareholders that the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing had been
investigating Activision Blizzard for harassment and
discrimination; and (7) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Activision Blizzard's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in ATVI:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/activision-blizzard-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=20068&from=1
Iterum Therapeutics Plc (NASDAQ:ITRM)
Class Period: November 30, 2020 - July 23, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 4, 2021
The complaint alleges that during the class period Iterum
Therapeutics Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the sulopenem New Drug
Application ("NDA") lacked sufficient data to support approval for
the treatment of adult women with urinary tract infections caused
by designated susceptible microorganisms proven or strongly
suspected to be nonsusceptible to a quinolone; (ii) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the Food and Drug Administration would approve
the sulopenem NDA in its current form; (iii) Defendants downplayed
the severity of issues and deficiencies associated with the
sulopenem NDA; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in ITRM:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/iterum-therapeutics-plc-loss-submission-form?id=20068&from=1
Katapult Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:KPLT)
Class Period: December 18, 2020 - August 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 26, 2021
Katapult Holdings, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Katapult
was experiencing declining e-commerce retail sales and consumer
spending, (2) despite Katapult's assertions that it was clear and
compelling value proposition to both consumers and merchants,
transforming the way nonprime consumers shop for essential goods
and enabling merchant access to this underserved segment, Katapult
lacked visibility into its consumers' future buying behavior; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in KPLT:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/katapult-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=20068&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
KATAPULT HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Katapult Holdings, Inc. ("Katapult" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
KPLT; KPLTW). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Katapult and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On June 9, 2021, Katapult announced the completion of its merger
with the "blank check" company FinServ Acquisition Corp. On June
10, 2021, Katapult announced that its shares and warrants would
begin trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbols "KPLT" and
"KPLTW", respectively. Then, on August 10, 2021, Katapult issued a
press release announcing disappointing financial results for the
second quarter of 2021, including a net loss of $8.1 million,
compared to $5.1 million in net income for the second quarter of
2020. The Company further disclosed that it "observed meaningful
[negative] changes in both e-commerce retail sales forecasts and
consumer spending behavior" and retracted its full year 2021
guidance, claiming it could not "accurately predict our consumer's
buying behaviors for the remainder of the year."
On this news, Katapult's stock price fell $5.47 per share, or
56.2%, to close at $4.26 per share on August 10, 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
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
KIA AMERICA: Marvin Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stefanie Marvin, Katherine Wargin, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Kia America, Inc.,
Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc., Case
No. 2021CV003759 was removed from the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin on Oct. 5, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01146-PP to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Kia America, Inc. -- https://www.kia.com/us/en -- provides a wide
range of cars that meet customers' lifestyle.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James B Barton, Esq.
Joshua Greenberg, Esq.
BARTON LEGAL SC
313 N Plankinton Ave-Ste 207
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Phone: (414) 488-1822
Phone: jbb@bartonlegalsc.com
jsg@bartonlegalsc.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael T Brody, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N Clark St
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 923-2711
Fax: (312) 840-7711
Email: mbrody@jenner.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Oct. 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Koninklijke
Philips N.V. ("Philips" or "the Company") (NYSE:PHG) for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
25, 2020and June 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before October 15, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Philips failed to maintain appropriate
product manufacturing controls and processes. The Company's
Bi-Level PAP and CPAP devices were made with hazardous materials as
a result of this failure. The Company's revenues from these
products were likely to suffer. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading. When the
market learned the truth about Philips, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
L7 COMMUNICATIONS: McKinney Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamark McKinney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L7 COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00886-KGB (E.D.
Ark., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the
Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and other piece rate paid
employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
throughout their tenure with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was not
paid for all hours they worked each week and regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week. Instead, it was the Defendants'
commonly applied policy to only pay the Plaintiff a piece rate
based on the amount of footage they installed or maintained,
regardless of the number of hours worked over 40 in a week. The
Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way
they paid the Plaintiff and other piece rate (per foot) employees
violated the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant.
L7 Communications LLC 1s a foreign limited liability company
registered to do business in the state of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris Burks, Esq.
WHLAW | WE HELP
1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745
North Little Rock, AR 72114
Phone: (501) 891-6000
Email: chris@wh.law
LOANDEPOT INC: Howard G. Smith Law Reminds of November 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
November 8, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased loanDepot, Inc.
("loanDepot" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDI) shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with loanDepot's February 16, 2021 initial public offering
("IPO").
Investors suffering losses on their loanDepot investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
In February 2021, loanDepot completed its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 3.85 million shares of Class A common stock at
$14.00 per share.
By August 17, 2021, loanDepot's stock price fell 42% below the IPO
price after the Company disclosed disappointing second quarter 2021
financial results and provided significantly lower guidance for its
business.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) loanDepot's
refinance originations had already declined substantially at the
time of the IPO due to industry over-capacity and increased
competition; (2) loanDepot's gain-on-sale margins had already
declined substantially at the time of the IPO; (3) as a result,
loanDepot's revenue and growth would be negatively impacted; 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 at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired loanDepot shares pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than
November 8, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff
if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class
action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this
class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
LONGEVERON INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Longeveron Inc. ("Longeveron" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LGVN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and docketed under 21-cv-23303, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Longeveron Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined
below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about February 12, 2021 (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); and/or (b) Longeveron securities between February 12,
2021 and August 12, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Longeveron Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO, and/or Longeveron securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 12, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Longeveron is a clinical stage biotechnology company that engages
in developing cellular therapies for aging-related and
life-threatening conditions. The Company's lead investigational
product is Lomecel-B, a cell-based therapy product that is derived
from culture-expanded medicinal signaling cells that are sourced
from the bone marrow of young healthy adult donors. Longeveron is
conducting, among other trials, a Phase 2b trial of its Lomecel-B
product for aging frailty (the "Phase 2b Aging Frailty Trial"). The
Phase 2b Aging Frailty Trial's primary efficacy endpoint is the
change from baseline in the six-minute walk test at six months (or
180 days) for Lomecel-B subjects compared to placebo subjects.
On January 19, 2021, Longeveron filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective by the SEC on February 11, 2021
(the "Registration Statement").
On or about February 12, 2021, pursuant to the Registration
Statement, Longeveron's Class A common stock began trading on the
Nasdaq Capital Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "LGVN."
Also on February 12, 2021, Longeveron filed a prospectus on Form
424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated
and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus"
and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").
Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Longeveron conducted the IPO,
issuing 2.66 million shares of its Class A common stock to the
public at the Offering price of $10.00 per share, for approximate
proceeds of $24.7 million to the Company after applicable
underwriting discounts and commissions, and before expenses.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lomecel-B was not as
effective in treating aging frailty as Defendants had led investors
to believe; (ii) accordingly, Lomecel-B's clinical and commercial
prospects with respect to aging frailty were overstated; and (iii)
as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
On August 13, 2021, Longeveron issued two press releases—one
announcing topline results of the Phase 2b Aging Frailty Trial, and
a second providing a corporate update and reporting the Company's
financial results for the second quarter of 2021. Both press
releases disclosed, among other results, that Lomecel-B had "not
achiev[ed] . . . statistical significance for the pairwise
comparison to placebo" with respect to the primary efficacy
endpoint.
On this news, Longeveron's stock price fell $1.51 per share, or
27.91%, to close at $3.90 per share on August 13, 2021,
representing a total decline of 61% from the Offering price.
As of the time the complaint was filed, Longeveron's stock price
continues to trade below the $10.00 per share Offering price,
damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
MAR Y SOL: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mar Y Sol LLC. The
case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Mar Y Sol LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-08225 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mar Y Sol -- https://shopmarysol.com/ -- offers hats and handbags
that feature exquisite craftsmanship and a creative use of
sustainable materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
MDL 2924: Judge to Consider Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Zantac lawsuits
will hold a hearing early next month to decide whether certain
class action claims filed by plaintiffs, which seek to to force
makers of the recalled heartburn drug to pay medical monitoring
costs to watch for potential future cancer cases, can move forward
or will be dismissed.
Zantac (ranitidine) was a popular heartburn treatment used by
millions of Americans before it was removed from the market in late
2019, following the discovery that the active pharmaceutical
ingredient is inherently unstable, and produces high levels of the
chemical byproduct N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), which is a known
carcinogen.
Over the past year, thousands of individuals have filed lawsuits
alleging they developed cancer from Zantac side effects, but the
drug makers also face a number of class action complaints seeking
damages on behalf of certain groups of individuals who were exposed
to the medications, but have not yet been diagnosed with an
injury.
Given common questions of fact and law raised in the litigation,
cases filed throughout the federal court system have been
centralized before U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in the
Southern District of Florida, as part of an MDL or multidistrict
litigation.
After Judge Rosenberg issued pretrial rulings granting the
manufacturers' motion to dismiss certain Zantac class action claims
earlier this year, the door was left open for the plaintiffs to
amend and refile certain pleadings.
Plaintiffs amended two of the class action complaints seeking
medical monitoring and refiled. However, last month, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss (PDF) the complaints yet again, on a
number of different grounds. The main thrust of the motion claims
the state-law failure to warn lawsuits are preempted by federal
law, since the FDA approved ranitidine and its label warnings.
In a response (PDF) filed in opposition to the motion on September
9, plaintiffs pointed out that Zantac was recalled due to levels of
NDMA that exceed the FDA's Acceptable Daily Intake threshold, which
they argue should prevent the manufacturers from hiding behind the
FDA's prior decision to approve the drug.
In an order (PDF) issued on September 27, Judge Rosenberg announced
the court will hold a hearing on the motions to dismiss on October
4 via Zoom conference due to the ongoing pandemic. Each side will
be allowed 15 minutes to make arguments on each motion, and are not
allowed to raise new arguments at that time.
The order calls for the parties to submit a list of presenters for
the hearing by October 1.
Zantac Cancer Risks
The litigation over Zantac may become one of the largest active
mass tort claims over the next few years, given the widespread use
of the heartburn and acid reflux drug for decades before it was
removed from the market late last year.
Public concerns about the Zantac cancer risk first emerged in
September 2019, when an online pharmacy discovered that each pill
may expose users to levels of NDMA that are drastically higher than
the permissible and safe. The FDA has previously found that the
daily safe limit for NDMA exposure is only 96 nanograms (ng).
However, pills tested by the independent pharmacy found that users
may be exposed to more than 3 million nanograms from each Zantac
pill.
Investigations have confirmed the problems were not caused by
contamination or changes in the manufacturing process, but appear
to be part of the inherent molecular structure of the active
pharmaceutical ingredient in Zantac, ranitidine.
Plaintiffs allege the manufacturers of Zantac knew or should have
known about these problems for decades, yet aggressively marketed
and sold brand-name prescription, generic and over-the-counter
versions of Zantac for years, without warning users that it may
cause them to develop cancer.
If the parties fail to reach Zantac settlements or another
resolution for the cases following discovery and bellwether trials
held before Judge Rosenberg, thousands of individual cases may end
up remanded back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for individual
trial dates in the coming years. [GN]
MONARCH RECOVERY: Lespes FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gregory Lespes, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., JOHN
DOES 1-10, Case No. ESX-L 6307 21 was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex, to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Sept. 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-17415-BRM-LDW to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Monarch Recovery Management -- https://monarchrm.com/ -- is a
collection agency based in Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM, LLC
411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 273-7117
Fax: (201) 273-7117
Email: ykim@kimlf.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ronald Michael Metcho, II, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
220 Penn Avenue, Suite 305
Scranton, PA 18503
Phone: (570) 257-6510
Email: rmetcho@margolisedelstein.com
NANO-X IMAGING: McLaughlin Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. McLaughlin, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. NANO-X IMAGING LTD., RAN POLIAKINE, and TAL
SHANK, Case No. 1:21-cv-05517 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Nano-X
securities between June 17, 2021 and August 18, 2021, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
On June 17, 2021, Nano-X submitted a 510(k) submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for its multi-source version
of the Nanox.ARC. Following this submission, Defendants touted the
Nanox.ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects in various public
statements and SEC filings. Throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Nano-X's 510(k)
application for the Nanox.ARC was deficient; (ii) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the FDA would approve the 510(k) application for
the Nanox.ARC in its current form; (iii) as a result, Nano- X had
overstated the Nanox.ARC's regulatory and commercial prospects; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On August 19, 2021, Nano-X reported that the Company "received a
request for additional information from the FDA concerning the
Company's last 510(k) submission of its multi-source device,
Nanox.ARC," and that "the submission file is placed on hold pending
a complete response to the FDA's list of deficiencies," with "[t]he
Company's response due within 180 days from the date of the request
for additional information." On this news, Nano-X's ordinary share
price fell $2.25 per share, or 9.5%, to close at $21.43 per share
on August 19, 2021.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired Nano-X securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Nano-X is a development-stage company that develops, produces, and
commercializes digital X-ray source technology for the medical
imaging industry worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
NEW BRUNSWICK: Restigouche Hospital Centre Class Action Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice DeWare of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench
certified a class proceeding today against the Province of New
Brunswick and Vitalite Health Network.
The class is comprised of those who were admitted to or resided at
the Restigouche Hospital Centre from 1954 to the present. It is
alleged that residents of the Restigouche Hospital Centre were
subjected to abuse, mistreatment and neglect.
The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench ruled "the Class Members
come from one of our most vulnerable groups in society, individuals
grappling with mental health challenges. . . . it is striking to
this Court that the significant issues experienced at the RHC in
the 1950s and 1960s remain almost exactly the same concerns set out
in the report of the Ombud in 2019"
James Sayce, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP and lead counsel, has
stated " The allegations in this case are very serious. This ruling
will allow for current and former residents to have their day in
court. Perhaps most importantly, this decision opens the door to
improving the allegedly abhorrent conditions at the Restigouche
Hospital Centre." [GN]
NEW YORK: Mayor Faces Class Action Over Vaccine Mandates
--------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Powe, writing for Gateway Pundit, reports that business
owners in New York City are banding together in a class-action
federal lawsuit to #EndCovidTyranny and fight back against the
government-sanctioned segregation ushered in by unconstitutional
vaccine mandates.
On August 17, Mayor Bill De Blasio signed Emergency Executive Order
225, mandating all indoor establishments "not permit a patron,
full- or part-time employee, intern, volunteer, or contractor to
enter covered premises without displaying proof of vaccination and
identification bearing the same identifying information as the
proof of vaccination."
Those lacking proof of a first jab or negative test result are now
shut out of theaters, bakeries, coffee shops, concert venues,
sports arenas, stadiums, zoos, arcades, aquariums, restaurants,
bars and gyms. Those who dare falsify the "sacred" vaccine passport
face a 7-year prison sentence.
Members of the Independent Restaurant Owners Association Rescue, a
group comprising over 200 business owners that formed at the start
of the "pandemic" in March 2020, are suing New York City Mayor De
Blasio and the city over the decree, in a lawsuit their attorney
contends will be the first domino towards ending covid tyranny
nationwide.
"We've been fighting with the governor and the mayor from the
beginning, trying to get us open, get people to be allowed back in
here," Alison Marchese, co-owner of Max's Es-Ca Italian restaurant
told the Gateway Pundit. "I don't know any restaurant owner who's
been sleeping at night.
"This last mandate is, again, over the top for us. We definitely
don't see how we can be responsible for checking people's IDs and
vaccination cards. We don't want to be separating our customers
telling people they can't come in.
"It's a lose-lose for us. We are making people angry either way -
if we don't check for vaccines people are mad at us as if we don't
care about the wellbeing of the customer. If we do, they're
labeling us as communists. So, there is no way we can win with
this."
The "nightmare" legislation weaponizes the private sector against
the nine million residents of the city who remain unvaccinated,
forcing restaurant owners to demand masks and turn away those who
cannot produce papers or go bankrupt, explains Max Calicchio,
Marchese's business partner.
After struggling during the lockdown, Calicchio fears small
businesses fear will not survive this latest blast of tyranny.
"The stress levels that this brings to all of us is just to the
moon." Calicchio told the Gateway Pundit. " Trying to follow these
mandates, going through 2 years of COVID with these restrictions,
it really bleeds you out," he continued. "We were finding a way to
not be compliant and avoid fines. Our attorney has told us since
advised us to try to be compliant because it would hurt our lawsuit
if we did not.
The owners of the Staten-Island based Italian restaurant urged
patrons who are fed up with the passport mandate to please
understand "it's not the restaurant's fault."
"Unfortunately, right now restaurants are being put in a tough
situation," Calicchio continued. "We are just trying to get through
this hopefully we'll have this mandated stopped. We are just trying
not to be closed down. Please have some patience while we try to
get this resolved."
"The people are right," Marchese added. They are flipping out on
the owners. They're right -- They upset they can't eat there --
it's crazy."
Calicchio and Marchese are imploring all restaurant owners in New
York City to become plaintiffs in the lawsuit and join them in the
fight to restore freedom before it's too late.
"We definitely need the support," Marchese said. "We are looking
for help. We definitely would love restaurant [owners] to join us.
Anybody can join with us."
If more plaintiffs join the lawsuit and support IROAR's legal
defense fund is able to amass, the higher the likelihood of winning
the case, contends Ron Berrutti, the corporate litigation attorney
representing IROAR.
"There is a necessity to pay legal fees and there is also a
necessity to protect these people against the fines that are going
to be coming," Berutti told the Gateway Pundit. "This really is a
national case. It is the first domino, we hope, in what is going to
be the end of covid tyranny in this state -- this country. If we
can push this one domino down, the next one is going to fall, the
next one is going to fall and the next one is going to fall.
De Blasio and the Biden administration's vaccine mandates, which
specifically target minorities, are a reinstitution of Jim
Crow-era-like subjugation, an overreach that will be ruled void
under the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution, Berutti argued.
"Since Jan 2021, the mayor has made a substantial effort to try to
get African Americans and minorities vaccinated -- they spent $125
million targeting African Americans and Hispanics. It really didn't
move the needle that much. Only 41 percent of African Americans in
the city have at least one jab," he said. "The mayor has
specifically targeted African Americans and he is telling 59
percent, a substantial majority, that in 2021 they cannot go into a
restaurant and sit at the lunch counter and that's a real slap in
the face.
The mainstream media in coordination with Big Tech are censoring
evidence of the abnormalities caused by spike proteins contained in
the Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca jabs -
including strokes, blood clots, excessive bleeding, heart
palpitations, myocarditis, needle-like pain in their limbs and
paralysis.
But at least 70 people are dying a day from the effects of the
experimental mRNA injections, making the gene therapy jab the most
detrimental "vaccine" in recorded history, according to the Center
for Disease Control's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
While the government disregards the constitution with vaccine
mandates using the guise of Emergency Use Authorization, COVID is
no longer an emergency, Berutti conends.
"There is no emergency anymore. Today, in New York City, there were
I believe there were 8 covid deaths, 135 hospitalizations and 1300
positive tests -- 3.5 percent that was tested, tested positive -- a
very small number. To the vaccinated, there's no danger, according
to the mayor's own statistics," he said. "It's our plan to push
these dominos down, starting right here in New York City. This
cannot go on. We cannot continue to be a free nation if this is
going to go on. We are going to fight like hell to stop that from
happening." [GN]
NOVO NORDISK: Settles U.S. Securities Class Action for $100MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Trial Lawyers reports that Novo Nordisk, one of the
world's top three manufacturers of insulin, agreed to pay $100
million to settle a 2017 investor suit that alleged the company
failed to disclose that it was under the same pricing pressures as
its competitors.
Novo said in a statement on Sept. 24 the settlement was reached
after a voluntary mediation process and resolves claims brought on
by investors for alleged violations of US securities laws.
The company said the settlement contains no admission of liability,
wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants. But the
settlement further exposes how the middlemen, known as pharmacy
benefit managers, have altered the course of insulin pricing as
prices have increased for diabetics and manufacturers' profits have
declined. [GN]
NURTURE INC: Albert Slams Toxic Substances in Baby Food
-------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Albert, Angela Arrowsmith, Elizabeth Austin, Alyssa Megan
Barb, Courtney Barron, Ashley Baxter, Brittany Bennett, Crystal
Brinig, Augustina Briones, Camarie Broomfield, Ana Butkus, Mayelin
Carranza, Samantha Clark, Melanie Cole, Kimberly Conway, Michelle
Corbett, Angela Cox, Brandy Davis, Kaley Deford, Chelzy Desvigne,
Brittany Distaso, Alana Doyeto, Sudipta Dutta, Samantha Edwards,
Ayame Tatiana Galassini, Marcela García, Kelsey Glennon, Christina
Gordon, Austin Gundersen, Amanda Hill, Shannon Herrington, Lillian
Hinkle, Amanda Hobbs-Rogers, Yuhwa Jang, Rebecca Keeton, Sara
Kilburn, Sarah Knaapen, Karleen Kozaczka, April Lockhart, Andrew
Lohse, Lori Ann Louis, Samantha Lui, Ashley Martinez, Elizabeth
Mcdowell, Lori-Ann Mckenzie-Henry, Janice Taina Mercado Guadalupe,
Lyrik Merlin, Loukevia Moore, Andrea Mozo, Leah Ostapchenko,
Corinthea Pangelinan, Mia Pelletier, Ashley Pierce, Janinne Price,
Debbie Reed, Kassandra Romero, Maggie Rouse, Bridget Salopek, Lea
Santos, Amanda Schram, Porsche Stokes, Rachel Stratton, Ashley
Swenningson, Margo Tezeno, Shiloh Thomas, Casey Tisdale, Rachael
Treetop, Sonja Renée Twiggs, Brittany Wallace, Natalie Williams,
Amber Wright, Retrena Younge, Charisse Zapata and Christen Zulli,
individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Nurture, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-08030 (S.D. N.Y.,
September 27, 2021), seeks injunctive relief resulting from
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of
express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and various states'
consumer protection statutes.
Nurture, Inc. manufactures, distributes, labels and sells flavored
rice puffs to babies in numerous varieties.
Plaintiffs alleges that the rice puffs contains significant levels
of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and perchlorate, all known to
pose health risks to humans and especially infants. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Tel: (203) 325-4491
Fax: (203) 325-3769
Email: isloss@sgtlaw.com
sbloch@sgtlaw.com
- and -
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
Robin Horton Silverman, Esq.
ZIGLER LAW GROUP, LLC
308 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 333
Chicago, IL 60661
Tel: (312) 673-8427
Email: aaron@ziglerlawgroup.com
robin.horton@ziglerlawgroup.com
- and -
Troy E. Walton, Esq.
Steve Telken, Esq.
WALTON TELKEN, LLC
241 N. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Tel: (618) 307-9880
Email: twalton@waltontelken.com
stelken@waltontelken.com
OMEROS CORPORATION: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Omeros Corporation (NASDAQ: OMER) resulting from
allegations that Omeros may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Omeros securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2167.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On October 1, 2021, Omeros announced that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had identified
deficiencies with the Company's Biologics License Application for
its drug candidate narsoplimab in the treatment of hematopoietic
stem cell transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy
(HSCT-TMA), which "preclude discussion of labeling and
post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time." The Company
further advised that the "FDA did not provide specific details of
the deficiencies in its notification[,]" and that the "the company
does not currently expect any resolution to occur by the October
17, 2021 target action date under the Prescription Drug User Fee
Act (PDUFA)."
On this news, Omeros's stock price fell $5.25 per share, or 38.07%,
to close at $8.54 per share on October 1, 2021.
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.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Walsh Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optio Solutions LLC.
The case is styled as Tara Walsh, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Optio Solutions LLC doing business as:
QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, Case No. 2:21-cv-17380-MCA-AME (D.N.J.,
Sept. 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Optio Solutions, LLC -- https://www.optiosolutions.com/ -- offers
profit recovery, collection, receivable and debt collection
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Phone: (973) 227-5900
Fax: (973) 244-0019
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Johnson Fistel Reminds of October 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on Oct. 2 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PYPL). The class action is on behalf
of shareholders who purchased PayPal common stock between February
9, 2017 to July 28, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class
action, you must move the Court no later than October 19, 2021.
If you suffered a substantial loss and are interested in learning
more about being a lead plaintiff, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number.
The lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) PayPal had deficient disclosure controls and procedures; (2) as
a result, PayPal's business practices concerning PayPal Credit
remained non-compliant with applicable laws and regulations; (3)
PayPal's practices regarding payment of interchange rates related
to its debit cards were likewise non-compliant with applicable laws
and regulations; (4) accordingly, PayPal's revenues derived from
its PayPal Credit and debit card practices were in part the subject
of improper conduct and thus unsustainable; (5) all the foregoing
subjected PayPal to an increased risk of regulatory investigation
and enforcement; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
About Johnson Fistel, LLP:Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally
recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California,
New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Contact:Johnson Fistel, LLPJim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
Zymergen Inc. (NASDAQ:ZY)
Class Period: purchase of shares issued either in or after the
April 2021 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 4, 2021
MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-zy/
PayPal Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:PYPL)
Class Period: 2/9/2017 - 7/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-pypl/
Cassava Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:SAVA)
Class Period: 9/14/2020 - 8/27/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 26, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-sava/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California, Louisiana and
New Jersey.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Sleep Therapy Machine Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Piovesan, writing for The West Australian, reports that a
man who has been coughing up black phlegm every morning for the
past five years claims a popular breathing machine sold across
Australia and internationally is to blame.
Adelaide father-of-two Peter Lewis says he has forked out $45,000
in medical bills as a result and is now one of 1500 plaintiffs
across the country launching a class action against Philips
Electronics Australia.
Personal injury firm Carbone Lawyers on Sept. 27 issued an
originating motion to start a class action in the Federal Court of
Australia, arguing each of the plaintiffs sustained injuries and
psychological trauma due to alleged defects in a recalled breathing
machine, designed to assist people with sleep apnoea.
Mr Lewis used both the REMstar and DreamStation sleep ventilators
between 2014 and 2020, following a diagnosis of mild sleep apnoea.
But a year after he first used the machine in 2014, the 57-year-old
noticed his health was deteriorating.
"I wasn't sleeping well, I was waking up with a very dry throat, I
was very tired, I had severe headaches, I wasn't sure what was
going on," Mr Lewis told NCA NewsWire.
"All of a sudden -- and I remember the day because I've told this
story to so many doctors -- it was February 22 in 2017 and I was
very busy at work and my sense of smell just disappeared, it just
went bang, gone."
Four weeks after that, Mr Lewis said his lungs started coughing up
phlegm.
"It was either bright yellow, sometimes black, sometimes grey . . .
I thought maybe I had cancer, I just did not understand what was
going on with my body," he said.
"I remember one night I was at a friend's house when I coughed up a
big black thing into a tissue that looked like road tar - I
couldn't believe that was coming from inside of me."
Philips in April globally recalled 14 sleep therapy machines
designed to help people with breathing disorders.
Users would wear an oxygen mask connected to the devices that
pushed out steady air pressure through a tube.
The continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), bi-level positive
airway pressure devices and mechanical ventilators were all
manufactured before April 26 this year.
But the electronics company found the foam used to dampen the
machines' sound could release small particles that irritated
airways as people slept.
"The foam may degrade into particles which may enter the device's
air pathway and be ingested or inhaled by the user, and the foam
may off-gas certain chemicals," Philips said.
Mr Lewis said he visited more than 20 doctors who could not provide
him with any answers.
His symptoms then progressively worsened and in 2018 he started to
experience issues with digestion.
"I'd literally vomit back up my dinner every night -- I was
regurgitating my own food," he said.
Doctors performed stomach corrective surgery, but Mr Lewis still
had trouble with his breathing and energy levels.
"I didn't even have the energy sometimes to get on the bus," he
said.
"I remember walking out of work one day and leaning against a wall
three times on the way back to my car huffing and puffing.
"I couldn't breathe -- I twice stopped at an emergency department
of a hospital and I'm someone who has had blood tests, cholesterol
tests, every test known to man and never had any health problems."
In July this year, Mr Lewis received a letter from Philips
notifying customers of its recall.
"I had to read it four times, all the answers were in here . . . it
explained the whole nightmare from start to finish," he said.
"They've stolen the last five years of my life and I just want to
get better and don't want this to impact the rest of my life."
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said a Philips
investigation identified the majority of particles released from
the devices' foam were too small to penetrate deep lung tissue, but
were likely to remain in a patient's upper airway.
It warned users could suffer symptoms such as headaches and
dizziness, irritation in the eyes, nose, respiratory tract, and
skin, asthma, hypersensitivity, nausea and possible carcinogenic
effects.
"To date, there is no definitive evidence of long-term harm to
patients and there have been no reports of death," the regulator
said.
Carbone Lawyers managing partner Tony Carbone said the class action
had potential to be the biggest in Australian history.
"If everyone that's ever bought one of these units -- if you
discount the fact there's probably one or two people out there with
more than one machine and let's assume everyone has two machines --
there's potentially 100,000 plaintiffs -- that's huge," he said.
In June this year, proceedings began out of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court by lawyers in the US.
Mr Carbone said if successful, those proceedings could attract a
verdict into the billions of dollars, due to the numbers of
plaintiffs and sleep machines sold in the US.
In Federal Court documents seen by NCA NewsWire, lawyers claimed
Philips was "negligent in the production, distribution and handling
of the recall" and demanded the cost of the devices and customers'
medical bills be reimbursed.
Lawyers were also requesting compensation for income loss, pain and
suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
Philips was unable to comment on any pending legal action, but said
analysis of potential health risks as a result of the machines was
ongoing.
"We cannot stress enough that Philips is treating this matter with
the highest level of seriousness and is dedicating significant time
and resources to address this issue," it said.
"Our intention is to give affected patients and customers the
service they expect and deserve as we work to resolve this matter
as our top priority." [GN]
POLARITYTE INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of November 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against PolarityTE, Inc.
("PolarityTE" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:APPH)and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired PolarityTE securities between April 30, 2020 and August
23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pte.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts and failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the SkinTE IND was deficient with respect to
certain Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control items; (2) as a
result, it was unlikely that the FDA would approve the SkinTE IND
in its current form; (3) accordingly, the Company had materially
overstated the likelihood that the SkinTE IND would obtain FDA
approval; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/pte or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inPolarityTE
you have until November 23, 2021, to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
POLARITYTE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of November 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against PolarityTE, Inc. ("Polarity" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PTE) in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah on behalf of those who purchased PolarityTE
securities between April 30, 2020 and August 23, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the SkinTE IND was
deficient with respect to certain Chemistry, Manufacturing, and
Control items; (2) as a result, it was unlikely that the FDA would
approve the SkinTE IND in its current form; (3) accordingly, the
Company had materially overstated the likelihood that the SkinTE
IND would obtain FDA approval; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On August 24, 2021, the Company issued a press release "provid[ing]
an update regarding correspondence from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) related to its Investigational New Drug
Application (IND) for SkinTE(R) with a proposed indication for
chronic cutaneous ulcers, which was filed on July 23, 2021. The FDA
provided feedback that certain Chemistry, Manufacturing, and
Control items need to be addressed prior to proceeding with a
pivotal study. As a result, the study proposed in the IND has been
placed on clinical hold. In accordance with standard practice and
regulations, the FDA has advised that it will issue a clinical hold
letter providing details on the basis for the hold to the Company
by September 21, 2021." On this news, the Company's stock price
fell $0.08 per share, or 9.52%, to close at $0.76 per share on
August 24, 2021.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of PolarityTE
should contact the Firm prior to the November 23, 2021 lead
plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212)
983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or
gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
Q LINK WIRELESS: Fabrikant Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Fabrikant, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Q LINK WIRELESS, LLC., a Florida limited liability
company, and JOHN DOE 1, Case No. 4:21-cv-03194-JMG-SMB (D. Neb.,
Sept. 23, 2021), is brought against the Defendants to stop their
illegal practice of sending unsolicited automated text messages to
the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by their conduct in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
As a part of their marketing, the Defendants sent thousands of
unsolicited texts promoting their services. The Defendants did not
obtain express written consent prior to sending these artificial or
prerecorded voice messages and, therefore, are in violation of the
TCPA. By sending the texts at issue, the Defendants violated the
privacy and statutory rights of the Plaintiff and the Class. The
Plaintiff, therefore, seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to
stop its unconsented texting, as well as an award of actual and
statutory fines to the Class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a citizen of Lincoln,
Nebraska.
Q Link markets and sells consumer wireless phone service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE
480 S. Ellsworth Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Phone: (650) 781-8000
Facsimile: (650) 648-0705
Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com
RANCHO MURIETA: Segismundo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rancho Murieta
Country Club, et al. The case is styled as Maria Segismundo, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Rancho Murieta Country
Club, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00308730-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.
Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 23, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Rancho Murieta Country Club -- https://www.ranchomurietacc.com/ --
is a Country club in Rancho Murieta, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
RELIN GOLDSTEIN: Villalobos Suit Removed to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jorge Villalobos, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Relin, Goldstein & Crane, LLP,
Case No. 616560/2021 was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of NY, Cty. of Suffolk to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on Sept. 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-05278-JMA-SIL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.
Relin, Goldstein & Crane LLP -- https://rgcattys.com/ -- is a law
firm in Rochester, NY that practices in collections, foreclosure,
and real estate law throughout New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
John Walter Hanson, Esq.
ROPERS MAJESKI, P.C.
750 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 668-5927
Fax: (212) 668-5929
Email: john.hanson@ropers.com
RMS FASHIONS: Slade Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Slade, Individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. RMS FASHIONS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-08197 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Wag Labs provides to their
non-disabled customers through http//:www.Agelessbyramona.com. The
Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Agelessbyramona.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs. Yet, Agelessbyramona.com contains thousands of access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to even complete a transaction on the website, says the complaint.
Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
RMS provides to the public a website known as Agelessbyramona.com
which provides consumers with access to goods and services,
including, the ability to view, learn about, and purchase the Skin
Renewal Serum, among other features.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
ROSS STORES: Jan. 25, 2022 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that consumers who purchased certain
cotton-polyester blended sheets from Ross Stores are eligible for
injunctive relief in the form of heightened reporting on thread
counts and better reports on ongoing investigations after a recent
nationwide class action settlement.
The Class includes anyone who bought Chief Value Cotton
polyester-cotton blend sheet sets from a Ross store between May 7,
2014, and Nov. 29, 2021. Brand-name products in this class action
lawsuit include Bentley Home, Hampton House, and Grande Estate.
They also include the Registered Identification Number 113585.
Plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit against Ross Stores allege
the actual thread count of certain products were lower than
advertised. Plaintiffs alleged that the products' labels
misrepresented the actual thread count.
Ross denies any basis for the lawsuit, and it denies wrongdoing of
any kind. Further, Ross says it did not misrepresent the threat
count of the products.
As a result, Ross alleges that Class Members did not suffer injury
and therefore are not eligible for monetary relief.
Courts did not rule on this issue, and no guilt or innocence was
determined.
Instead, both parties agreed to a reasonable, fair, and equitable
settlement. The class action settlement will now require Ross to
provide specific assurances for its products.
Class Members will receive certification in writing that the sheets
supplied by Ross comply with the actual thread count. They'll also
be informed about any investigations, claims, or lawsuits about the
thread count of sheets supplied to Ross.
As part of the settlement, Ross will pay up to $790,000 in costs
related to the lawsuit, settlement, and distribution of funds. Ross
will also pay the Class counsel's fees.
The final hearing will take place Jan. 25, 2022, in Oakland,
California.
The deadline to file an objection is Nov. 29, 2021.
Class Members are also eligible to opt out of the lawsuit and class
action settlement. Class Members who want to join another lawsuit
or raise the same legal claims against Ross in a different lawsuit
need to opt out.
The deadline for Class Members to exclude themselves is Nov. 29,
2021.
Class Members will have no right to sue later for claims if no
action is taken.
No claim form is required for this settlement. [GN]
SAN DIEGO HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that multiple class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Californian healthcare provider San Diego Health
over a data breach involving the protected health information of
496,949 patients.
On March 12, 2021, San Diego Health identified suspicious activity
in employee email accounts and launched an investigation. On April
8, 2021, it was determined multiple email accounts containing
patients' protected health information had been accessed by
unauthorized individuals between December 2, 2020 and April 8,
2021. A review of the compromised email accounts confirmed them to
contain protected health information such as names, addresses,
dates of birth, email addresses, medical record numbers, government
ID numbers, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, and
health information such as test results, diagnoses, and
prescription information.
HIPAA requires covered entities to issue notifications to affected
individuals within 60 days of the discovery of a breach. San Diego
Health published a substitute breach notice on its website on July
27, 2021 and started issuing individual notifications to patients
on September 9, 2021. Patients have been offered complimentary
credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for 12
months and coverage under a $1 million identity theft insurance
policy.
A lawsuit was filed against San Diego Health on behalf of patient
Denise Menezes on September 20 alleging negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of confidence, and violations of the California
Consumer Privacy, California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, and a violation of California Unfair Competition Law.
The lawsuit alleges San Diego Health failed to comply with its
obligations to protect patient data as required by the HIPAA
Security Rule. It is alleged that appropriate, industry-standard
cybersecurity measures such as spam filtering including SPF and
DMARC was not implemented to prevent hackers from gaining access to
email accounts where patients' protected health information was
stored. Also, that sufficient security awareness training had not
been provided to employees to help them identify and avoid phishing
attempts. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges negligence for failing
to detect the breach for 4 months and for failing to notify
affected individuals within a reasonable amount of time.
A second lawsuit, which also seeks class action status, was filed
on behalf of patient Richard Hartley on September 22. The lawsuit
also alleges negligence for the same failures, and also states that
a potential data breach was detected by San Diego Health on March
12, but it took until April 8 to expel the unauthorized individuals
from its email environment.
The lawsuit alleges negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of confidence, and violations of the California Consumer
Privacy Act and California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act.
The plaintiff claims to have suffered actual injury as a result of
the breach. Alleged injuries include anxiety caused by the theft of
his personal information and paying monies to San Diego Health for
goods and services that required a disclosure of PHI which would
not have been made if he was aware inadequate security measures
were in place to protect that information. The plaintiff also
alleges damages to and diminution of the value of sensitive
information, loss of privacy, impending and imminent injury due to
identity theft, and the time and expense of mitigating the effects
of the breach.
The lawsuits seek unspecified damages for the plaintiffs and all
other class members whose personal and medical information may have
been compromised in the attack, a jury trial, and an injunction
compelling San Diego Health to enhance cybersecurity to prevent
similar breaches in the future. [GN]
SARMIENTO CONSTRUCTION: Alfaro Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Israel Alfaro, individually and behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sarmiento Construction, LLC, Petra
Sarmiento and Jose De La Torre, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00838
(W.D. Mich., September 27, 2021), seeks damages, back pay,
restitution, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, civil
penalties, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and any and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.
Sarmiento Construction is a company specializing in roof
replacement and roof installation on residential homes where Alfaro
was solely paid a piece rate wage. He claims to have worked on
average 78 hours per work week but was never compensated the
mandatory overtime premium for all hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a single work week. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC
600 28th St. SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Tel: (616) 257-6807
Email: ralvarez@avantilaw.com
SATA INTERNACIONAL: Cert. of Class Suit Over Delayed Flights Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Pankratz, writing for Aviation Law, reports that the Federal
Court of Canada recently denied an application to certify a
proposed class action against SATA Internacional for claims of
compensation for delayed flights. In Berenguer v. SATA
Internacional, the Plaintiff was an Alberta resident and the
Defendant a Portuguese commercial airline, which operates scheduled
flights to and from Canadian cities. The claim related to the
alleged failure of SATA to pay compensation in accordance with
European Union Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 ("EU261"). EU261 is a
consumer protection regulation which sets out requirements for
providing compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of
denied boarding and cancellation or delays of flights.
The Plaintiff sought to certify a class action on behalf of all
passengers worldwide who experienced delays on flights operated by
SATA to and/or from Canada, which arrived at the final destination
more than 3 hours after the scheduled arrival time. The Plaintiff
sought a declaration that SATA breached the express and/or implied
terms of its contract of carriage to pay cash compensation in
accordance with EU261 and an order that SATA pay compensation to
each class member. At the same time, SATA brought an application
for an order to strike the claim, without leave to amend, and
dismiss the proceeding on the basis that the pleadings did not
disclose a viable cause of action. Before considering the motion to
certify, the Court dealt with the threshold jurisdictional issue as
to whether the Federal Court of Canada had jurisdiction to hear the
action.
SATA argued that the Court had no jurisdiction, whether the claim
sought relief under EU261 or on the basis of a breach of contract
to comply with EU261, as it was plain and obvious that the relief
sought was not "under an Act of Parliament or otherwise" as
required by the Federal Courts Act (the "Act"). The Plaintiff
argued that her claim was recognized, created, and/or determined to
some material extent by federal law and that SATA, expressly or by
implication, contractually agreed to apply EU 261 to its passengers
and flights.
On its motion to strike the claim, SATA had the burden to prove
that it was plain and obvious that the Federal Court had no
jurisdiction. The Federal Court is a statutory court and can only
exercise jurisdiction under a statutory grant of power. The Court
confirmed that in order for it to have jurisdiction to hear a
matter, three conditions must be met:
1, There must be a statutory grant of jurisdiction by the federal
Parliament;
2. There must be an existing body of federal law which is essential
to the disposition of the case and which nourishes the statutory
grant of jurisdiction; and
3. The law on which the case is based must be "a law of Canada" as
the phrase is used in section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
In analyzing whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction, it was
first necessary to determine the essential nature of the claim.
Here, the Plaintiff framed her pleadings as a claim for breach of
contract. She alleged that the Defendant, under its tariff,
contractually incorporated and agreed to comply with the flight
delay/cancellation rules of EU261. The Plaintiff sought to enforce
the Defendant's contractual obligation to pay compensation. The
Defendant agreed that the core issue related to a contractual
dispute. However, the parties disagreed on whether the damages
claimed were sought under an Act of Parliament or otherwise, as
required by the Act. The Court was satisfied that the claim fell
under the field of aeronautics, as defined in the Act, and
therefore the first condition was met. However, the Court found
that the two other conditions were not.
The jurisdictional dispute focussed on the second and third
elements that there was a "body of federal law" based on "a law of
Canada." SATA acknowledged that the Montreal Convention is part of
Canadian federal law by virtue of the Carriage by Air Act and that
the Federal Court has jurisdiction to hear carriage by air
disputes. However, the claim must be founded on the Montreal
Convention. In Thibodeau v. Air Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada
held that the Montreal Convention provides the exclusive recourse
against airlines for various types of claims arising in the course
of international carriage by air. SATA argued that the Plaintiff's
claim did not respect the exclusivity principle. Further SATA said
that the claim was based on contract and EU261, and that any
federal law related to the claim was merely a bystander. The Court
agreed. The claim did not rely on Article 19 of the Montreal
Convention which does relate to delays. Rather, the Plaintiff
sought damages for breach of contract, in that SATA breached its
tariff and did not pay compensation under EU261.
The Court held that it was plain and obvious that the source of the
Defendant's alleged liability did not arise out of the Carriage by
Air Act or any other Canadian law. Rather, it related to contract
law and EU261, not federal law. The Court found that there was no
body of federal law "essential to the disposition of the case and
which nourishes the statutory grant of jurisdiction" and therefore
it was plain and obvious that there was no cause of action. As
there was no reason to suggest that the Plaintiff could improve her
case by amending the pleadings, the Court granted the Defendant's
motion to strike the claim. The court reaffirmed another recent
decision of the Federal Court, limiting the jurisdictional
authority of the Federal Court to consider and adjudicate upon
aviation matters (see our previous blog post here).
The Court held that even if that finding was incorrect, it was
plain and obvious that the claim had no prospect of success.
Article 29 of the Montreal Convention provides that "any action for
damages, however founded" may be only be brought "subject to the
conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this
Convention". Further, it provides that non-compensatory damages
should not be recoverable. Article 19 of the Montreal Convention
imposes liability on a carrier for damage occasioned by delay, but
the Plaintiff did not allege that she sustained any damages,
occasioned by delay or otherwise.
In the circumstances the Court granted the motion to strike the
claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Nevertheless, if that determination was wrong, the Court went on to
consider whether the Plaintiff met the required conditions set out
in the Federal Court Rules in order to certify a class proceeding.
The Court considered whether:
-- The pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action;
-- There is an identifiable class of two or more persons;
-- The claims of the class members raise common questions of law or
fact;
-- A class proceeding is the preferable procedure; and
-- There is a representative plaintiff.
Although the Court found that most of the conditions may have been
met, not all were. Not all claims raised common issues among the
proposed class members and the Court was not satisfied that a class
action would be preferable to the informal facilitation process and
formal adjudicative process offered by the Canadian Transport
Agency ("CTA"). The Court noted that the CTA is an independent,
quasi-judicial tribunal which makes decisions on a wide range of
aviation matters. It has considerable power, including the
authority to examine and interpret SATA's tariff. Where it
determines that a carrier has not properly applied its tariff, the
CTA has the power to order a carrier to take corrective measures
and/or pay compensation to passengers.
The Court concluded by confirming that the Defendant's motion to
strike for want of jurisdiction was granted and the action was
dismissed. The Plaintiff's application to certify a class action
was dismissed as she had failed to meet the burden of establishing
all 5 criteria for certification. [GN]
SELECTQUOTE INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of October 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Oct. 3 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
Live Ventures Incorporated (NASDAQ:LIVE)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT LIVE:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/live-ventures-incorporated-loss-submission-form/?id=20069&from=1
Class Period: December 28, 2016 - August 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 12, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants 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.
Selectquote, Inc. (NYSE:SLQT)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT SLQT:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/selectquote-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=20069&from=1
Class Period: February 8, 2021 - May 11, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 15, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
SelectQuote's 2019 cohort was underperforming; (2) as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted; and (3) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
View, Inc. f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ:VIEW)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT VIEW:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/view-inc-f-k-a-cf-finance-acquisition-corp-ii-loss-submission-form/?id=20069&from=1
Class Period: November 30, 2020 - August 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 18, 2021
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.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
SOCLEAN INC: Turner Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoClean, Inc. The
case is styled as Jackie Turner, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-00722-FJG (W.D. Mo., Oct. 4, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan White, Esq.
WHITE GRAHAM BUCKLEY & CARR, LLC
19049 East Valley View Parkway, Suite C
Independence, MO 64055
Phone: (816) 373-9080
Fax: (816) 373-9319
Email: bwhite@wagblaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Fleming, Esq.
KAPKE & WILLERTH, LLC
3304 NE Ralph Powell Rd.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
Phone: (816) 461-3800
Phone: mike@kapkewillerth.com
STATE FARM: Faces Suit Over Exclusion of Sales Tax in Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action
claims State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has failed to
include sales tax in payments made to insureds whose vehicles were
deemed a total loss after accidental damage.
The lawsuit alleges State Farm has "systematically and uniformly"
underpaid thousands of consumers whose insurance policies included
comprehensive and collision coverage by refusing to pay the total
cost to repair or replace a damaged vehicle (limited to the car's
actual cash value), which necessarily includes sales tax.
The exclusion of sales tax from total loss claims payments amounts
to a breach of State Farm's insurance policies, the case attests.
The complaint explains that under the terms of State Farm's auto
insurance policies, the insurer agrees to pay for "direct, sudden,
and accidental damage" to a covered vehicle by either repairing or
replacing the car, or paying the insured the amount it would cost
to do so, to the end that the vehicle is restored, or can be
restored, to its pre-loss condition. Per the suit, if State Farm
chooses to pay the insured instead of repairing the vehicle, its
liability is limited to the vehicle's actual cash value minus any
deductible. Thus, when State Farm determines that the repairs to a
damaged vehicle would cost more than its pre-loss actual cash
value, the car is deemed a "total loss" and State Farm pays the
vehicle's actual cash value, the case relays.
A vehicle's actual cash value (ACV), the suit contends, is an
"independent amount" not based on how much the consumer originally
paid for the car, whether they replace it with another vehicle, or
the price of the replacement vehicle:
"The ACV is the same whether the insured paid nothing for the total
loss vehicle, paid less than what the vehicle was worth, or paid
more than what the vehicle was worth. The ACV is the same whether
the insured replaces the vehicle with a more expensive vehicle, a
less expensive vehicle, or chooses not to replace the vehicle at
all."
Because sales tax, a "mandatory cost" imposed by California on the
purchase of every vehicle, is "inherently part" of the cost to
replace a vehicle, it must be included in the car's ACV, the suit
alleges.
"It is impossible to replace a total loss vehicle-or to purchase
any vehicle under any circumstances-without payment for sales tax,"
the complaint asserts.
The case proposes to cover the following class:
"All individuals insureds under a California policy issued by State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company covering an insured
vehicle with private-passenger auto physical damage coverage with
comprehensive or collision coverage, who made a first-party claim
determined by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company to be
a total loss, and where the total loss payment did not include
sales tax calculated as the applicable state and local percentage
of the adjusted vehicle value ('ACV Sales Tax') within four years
prior to the date on which this lawsuit was filed through the date
of any certification order." [GN]
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Settles Discrimination Class Suit for $3.7-Mil
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Syracuse.com reports that Syracuse University agrees to pay $3.7M
to settle lawsuit: Syracuse University agreed on Oct. 1 to pay $3.7
million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed by five female
faculty members who claimed the school's pay and promotion policies
discriminated against women. The proposed settlement would mean
most full-time women faculty working during much of the last decade
could be eligible for more compensation. [GN]
TACONIC PLASTICS: Settles Class Suit Over Polluted Drinking Water
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a plastics company in upstate New
York agreed to pay $23.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
claiming it knowingly polluted well water with a toxic chemical.
The Times Union reports the proposed settlement, agreed to by
Taconic Plastics, would benefit hundreds of residents in Rensselaer
County whose drinking water was contaminated with a manufacturing
chemical.
The settlement would establish funds to pay Petersburgh property
owners and to set up a 15-year medical monitoring program for
individuals who had a certain level of perfluorooctanoic acid, or
PFOA, detected in their blood.
Exposure to PFOA has been linked to cancer and other illness.
Taconic's president issued a statement on Oct. 1 saying he was
pleased the case had been settled. [GN]
TAMAQUA TRANSFER: O'Donnell Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas O'Donnell, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TAMAQUA TRANSFER AND RECYCLING, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-01701-KM (M.D. Pa., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought to recover
all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff regularly works over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff
is paid on a piece-rate basis. Specifically, they receive a
pre-determined amount in compensation for each route they complete/
The Defendant has not paid the Plaintiff any overtime premium
compensation for hours worked over 40 per week. In failing to pay
the Plaintiff overtime compensation, the Defendant acted willfully
and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA provision
and, as such, willfully violated the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a waste disposal driver from February
2016 until July 2021.
The Defendants provides garbage and recycling collection for
residential ad commercial customers in the Tamaqua area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
- and -
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSONALEXANDER
829 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361) 452-1279
TAYLOR JAMES: Battle Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taylor James, LLC.
The case is styled as Jabril Battle, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Taylor James, LLC doing
business as: Supergoop!, Case No. 2:21-cv-07915-CAS-KES (C.D. Cal.,
Oct. 4, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Supergoop! -- https://supergoop.com/ -- is a prestige skincare
brand 100% dedicated to suncare, making it easy to incorporate UV
protection into daily routines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
ron@consumersadvocates.com
TENNESSEE: Illegally Jailed Minors Can Claim Part of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press reports that about 1,450 people jailed illegally
as minors in Tennessee can claim part of a $11 million class-action
settlement, but fewer than 200 people have filed eligible claims.
The Daily News Journal reports the Rutherford County Juvenile
Detention Center regularly locked up children for misdemeanor
charges, including truancy, school fights and disobeying parents.
Tennessee law prohibits pretrial incarceration of children unless
they are charged with a violent felony, a weapons offense, or a
probation violation.
Under the terms of a June settlement, eligible plaintiffs will
receive $4,800 per illegal incarceration and $1,000 per arrest.
They have until Oct. 29 to file a claim. More information is
available at www.rutherfordjuvenilesettlement.com. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Saved Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports thata Toyota class action lawsuit has
been filed in the state of Washington alleging Lexus and Toyota
customers have their text messages recorded by the infotainment
systems.
The two plaintiffs who filed the class action lawsuit allege the
infotainment systems in vehicles built at least from 2014 onward
also download and store copies of all text messages from phones
connected to the infotainment systems.
The text messages are allegedly stored in the computer memory in a
way the Lexus or Toyota owner cannot access.
The Toyota class action lawsuit includes:
"All persons, who within three years prior to the filing of this
Complaint, had their text messages recorded by the infotainment
system in a Toyota vehicle (Toyota or Lexus) while a resident of
the State of Washington."
The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Evgeniy Goussev and Stacy
Ritch, but only one of the plaintiffs is a Toyota customer.
Plaintiff Goussev owns a 2019 Toyota but says he did not consent to
Toyota or any third parties downloading and saving his text
messages.
In the past three years, plaintiff Ritch sent at least one text
message to Plaintiff Goussev and the plaintiff never consented to
have the messages saved.
The Toyota class action lawsuit alleges Toyota violates the
Washington Privacy Act, "which forbids any entity in Washington
from intercepting or recording any private communication without
first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the
communication."
Toyota Class Action Lawsuit: No Privacy
According to the Toyota class action lawsuit, Maryland-based Berla
Corporation manufactures equipment (hardware and software) capable
of extracting stored text messages from infotainment systems in
Toyota vehicles.
The lawsuit alleges Berla admits while a vehicle owner cannot
retrieve their own text messages, Berta and Toyota ensured law
enforcement can.
The plaintiffs claim the CEO for Berla once gave an example of a
Ford Explorer that had been rented. The saved data allegedly
included 70 phones that had been connected to the infotainment
system and all the call logs.
In addition, all the phone contacts, text messages and even music
preferences were saved in the computer of the vehicle.
The plaintiffs claim they have been injured by Toyota's conduct in
saving the private and confidential text messages without consent,
and the plaintiffs can't even access or delete their own messages.
The Toyota class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma: Goussev, et
al., v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Ard Law Group PLLC. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Defective Brake Boosters Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
hybrid class action lawsuit continues in court as vehicle owners
try to convince the judge the lawsuit adequately alleges there are
defects in the brake boosters and brake booster pump assemblies.
The class action alleges more than 1 million of these hybrid
vehicles are affected.
2010-2015 Toyota Prius
2010-2015 Toyota Prius PHV
2012-2015 Toyota Prius v
2012-2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid
2013-2015 Toyota Avalon Hybrid
Several Toyota hybrid class actions were filed and consolidated in
Texas, but all the lawsuits allege the hybrid vehicles should have
been recalled long ago. A Toyota and Lexus brake booster recall was
announced in 2019, but the recalled models didn't include older
vehicles.
The plaintiffs claim Toyota knows the vehicles suffer from brake
problems because dealerships have been warned about owners who
complain about their vehicles.
The hybrid class action says Toyota created customer support
program ZJB in August 2018 to replace the brake boosters and pump
assemblies for Prius cars.
The automaker also issued a technical service bulletin (TSB) in
September 2019 for 2012-2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid and 2013-2015
Avalon Hybrid brake booster assemblies. TSB 0130-19 warned dealers
the problem can occur from a small internal brake fluid leak in the
brake booster assembly.
The lawsuit also alleges customer program ZKK expanded the brake
booster repairs to 2012-2014 Toyota Camry Hybrid and 2013-2015
Toyota Avalon Hybrid vehicles.
However, the plaintiffs claim some of those operations came with
conditions that could possibly cost Toyota hybrid owners money for
testing and repairs.
Progression of the Toyota Hybrid Class Action Lawsuit
The original Toyota hybrid brake booster lawsuit was filed in
January 2020 by plaintiffs Jason Medeiros and Nancy Bennett-Hauser
(Medeiros v. Toyota).
About a month later, plaintiffs Laura Turner and Glenn Alcaraz
filed a similar hybrid class action lawsuit against Toyota (Turner
v. Toyota).
Three days later, plaintiff Mariano Alaniz filed a hybrid class
action lawsuit against Toyota (Alaniz v. Toyota).
In February 2020, Chong Eun, Stephanie Owens, Enrique Pabon, Bryan
Feinberg, David Siegal, Gregory Vasquez, Madeline Vasquez and Lois
Felts filed a Toyota hybrid class action suit (Eun, v. Toyota).
Then in March 2020, Willie Rose and Jeffrey Warner Rasco filed
their own hybrid class action lawsuit in Texas (Rose v. Toyota).
Also in March 2020, the Medeiros/Bennett-Hauser lawsuit and the
Turner/Alcaraz class action were voluntarily dismissed, but the
plaintiffs reappeared later in the current version of the Toyota
hybrid brake lawsuit.
Three days after the voluntary dismissals, Yvette Winia, Raul
Rivera, Cristina Rivera and Kamran Khan filed a hybrid class action
(Winia v. Toyota).
In April 2020, plaintiffs in three of the lawsuits filed a motion
to consolidate the class actions, and on that same day plaintiff
Bonnie Hendricks filed a Toyota hybrid class action lawsuit similar
to those previously filed in other courts (Hendricks v. Toyota).
The current master hybrid lawsuit also includes plaintiff Nancy
Kwan who originally filed her Toyota hybrid brake booster lawsuit
in May 2020 (Kwan v. Toyota).
Judge Amos L. Mazzant dismissed part of the brake booster class
action lawsuit in July 2021, and the plaintiffs filed a new amended
lawsuit less than a month later.
The current class action is titled, In Re: Toyota Hybrid Brake
Litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Sherman Division. [GN]
TYCO FIRE: Oct. 22 Deadline Set to File Settlement Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Maya Shimizu Harris, writing for Eagle Herald, reports that the
deadline for Town of Peshtigo residents to file a claim for
financial compensation under the 2021 Class Action Settlement with
Tyco Fire Products (Tyco), a subsidiary of Johnson Controls Inc.,
is approaching Oct. 22.
Plaintiffs and Town of Peshtigo residents Joan and Richard Campbell
filed a complaint against defendants Tyco, Chemguard, Inc. and
ChemDesign Products Dec. 17, 2018. The case involved claims of
"exposure, injury and property damage occurring in the Town of
Peshtigo" because of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance
contamination resulting from Tyco's activities at the Fire
Technology Center, according to a United States District Court
document. The involved parties reached a $17.5 million settlement
in May 2021.
Some Town of Peshtigo residents may be able file a claim and
receive compensation under the settlement for damages from PFAS
exposure and loss of property value. Potentially eligible
individuals include all persons who currently reside on/own or
formerly resided on/owned a property with a Private Well Drinking
Water Source within the Class Area, defined as the area in the Town
of Peshtigo bounded by University Drive, Heath Lane, Roosevelt Road
and the Bay of Green Bay, for at least one year between Jan. 1,
1965, and Dec. 31, 2020.
For more information and to file a claim, residents can visit
firefightingfoamsettlement.com. [GN]
UBS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Incorrect Tax Information Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Goodman, Individually And As Trustee of the Richard M.
Goodman Revocable Living Trust, And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-18123 (D.N.J., Oct. 5, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant on behalf of a Class of all persons in the United States,
who on or after January 1, 2014 acquired taxable municipal
securities in an account maintained by Defendant, and who received
a Form 1099 from Defendant incorrectly reporting the amount of
amortizable bond premium, thereby sustaining financial harm as a
result.
According to the complaint, as a necessary part of the Defendant's
brokerage services, each year Defendant provides tax reporting
information to each of its clients, including on IRS Form 1099, so
that its clients will have the information required to prepare
their income tax returns. Beginning with the 2014 tax year, the
Defendant incorrectly reported certain tax information to its
clients relating to interest paid on taxable municipal bonds, in
violation of clear Treasury Regulations and in violation of
Defendant's own representations to its clients regarding its
practices and policies for such tax information reporting.
The Defendant failed to report amortizable bond premium for taxable
municipal bonds as required by applicable Treasury Regulations.
Defendant's incorrect tax information reporting to clients had the
effect of substantially overstating the clients' taxable income
costing money to plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant's incorrect
tax information reporting was negligent and in breach of the
Defendant's contractual and fiduciary duties owed to its clients.
As a direct result of the Defendant's incorrect tax information
reporting, the Defendant's clients, including the Plaintiff and the
Class, incurred harm including but not limited to substantial tax
overpayments, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and the Trust were clients of UBS during the period
at issue in this complaint.
UBS, as part of one of the world's largest financial institutions,
provides securities brokerage services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee Albert, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, New York 10169
Phone: (212) 682-5340
Email: lalbert@glancylaw.com
- and -
Garth Spencer, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Email: gspencer@glancylaw.com
- and -
William H. Goodman, Esq.
GOODMAN HURWITZ & JAMES, P.C.
1394 E Jefferson Ave
Detroit, MI 48207
Phone: (313) 567-6170
Email: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Still Await Settlement Payout
----------------------------------------------------------
Jena Brooker, writing for Grist, reports that the Emergency Relief
Act was created to address both the historic systemic racism that
has put farmers of color behind their white colleagues, and the
unequal distribution of COVID-19 relief money, U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack told the Washington Post after the bill's
passing in March.
Black farmers received $20.8 million of Trump's COVID-19 relief
money for farmers -- just 0.1 percent of the nearly $26 billion in
aid. This is despite that group making up 1.3 percent of all U.S.
farmers. Meanwhile, some 99 percent of Congress' COVID-related aid
for agriculture went to white farmers.
Kate Waters, a press secretary for the USDA, told Grist that the
agency plans to fight the lawsuits. "The reality is the deck has
been stacked against Black farmers, who for generations have been
denied access to land and capital," she said. To address the issue,
Waters said, the agency created a newly-established equity
commission that will conduct a comprehensive structural review.
But last month, the Department of Justice passed on a chance to
appeal one of the three injunctions. Corey Lea, executive director
of the Cowtown Foundation, an organization that partners with law
firms to get justice for disadvantaged farmers, says it's "business
as usual" for Secretary Vilsack. "He has no intention of providing
debt relief for Black farmers," Lea told Grist.
Legal experts say the situation is tricky.
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, some feel it's a sure loss
given the makeup of the current justices. And there is some concern
that the case could inadvertently threaten affirmative action as a
whole in other governmental programs. "Given constitutional
precedent and today's very conservative federal judiciary, [the
Biden administration] needs to act very carefully when it designs
programs that try to offer aid only to particular racial groups,"
said Berger.
"Unless Congress can devise a more flexible, nuanced program," he
noted, "this debt relief will be on constitutional thin ice."
Lloyd Wright, a Black farmer in Virginia and former director of the
USDA's civil rights office, is proposing changing the language of
the act so there's a better shot at farmers actually getting money.
Instead of being based on a farmer's race, debt relief from the
Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act would be determined in
other more flexible ways based on discrimination. "If we don't
change the definition, farmers won't be getting debt relief,"
Wright told the Center for Public Integrity.
For many, the money was a milestone in a decades-long fight for
justice for farmers of color. The USDA has a history of
disproportionately granting loans and access to governmental
assistance programs to white farmers over farmers of color,
contributing to a 90 percent decline of Black-owned farm land
between 1910 and 1997. (Ownership for white farmers declined just 2
percent over the same period.) And there's evidence that USDA
discrimination continues today. In 2020, 37 percent of Black
applicants were granted loans from the agency, compared to 71
percent of white applicants, according to an analysis by Politico.
For Carpenter, the disappointment goes beyond the current holdup.
This isn't the first time he was expecting relief only for it not
to show up. Carpenter was part of the class action Pigford v.
Glickman lawsuit more than 20 years ago, which claimed
discrimination by the USDA against Black farmers. The settlement in
that case authorized up to $50,000 plus debt relief for each
farmer. But like many of his colleagues, Carpenter never got the
money.
"When the American Rescue Plan came into place, I really thought
that was a great idea," he said. "I thought it was something that
would be set in stone. I used to always say, 'It would take an act
of Congress for Black farmers to get paid.' But I did not realize
that even [then], they still could throw rocks in your plans and
mess up everything."
Legal experts said it could be months or years before everything is
sorted out with the injunctions and lawsuits filed against the
relief act.
When Grist first reached out to Carpenter for an interview, it took
a while for him to respond. He was hesitant about talking to the
media. "I've been discouraged by the fact that I've done probably
over 200 interviews," he said, "and have been vocal about all the
wrong that's been going on, and nothing has really happened to
change anything." [GN]
VACA RESTAURANT: Alonzo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vaca Restaurant
Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Thuy Thanh Alonzo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vaca
Restaurant Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, Does
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-01639-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Oct.
4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vaca Group -- http://www.vacagroup.com/-- provides a world-class
dining experience touched with flavors from all over the
globe.[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
VISA INC: Must Face "Swipe Fee" Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Visa Inc. and
Mastercard Inc. must face a certified class action on behalf of
businesses seeking to force the credit card giants to reduce the
"swipe fees" they charge on each transaction using their payment
networks, a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Sept. 27.
Judge Margo K. Brodie conferred class status on the merchants
leading the long-running multidistrict case in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, where parallel claims
seeking antitrust damages previously settled for $6.2 billion. The
businesses are now seeking an injunction. [GN]
WATERDROP INC: Pomerantz Law Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Waterdrop Inc. ("Waterdrop" or the "Company") (NYSE: WDH). Such
investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Waterdrop and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On or about May 7, 2021, Waterdrop conducted its initial public
offering ("IPO"), selling 30 million American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") priced at $12.00 per ADS and raising approximate $360
million.
Then, on June 17, 2021, Waterdrop issued a press release announcing
the Company's financial results for the quarter ended March 31,
2021 -- i.e., the quarter immediately before the IPO. The Company
reported that its operating costs and expenses had ballooned over
75%, or RMB579.1 million, to RMB1,343.9 million (US$205.1 million).
As a result, the Company suffered an operating loss for the quarter
of RMB460.6 million (US$70.3 million), compared with operating loss
of RMB111.1 million for the same period of 2020 -- a more than
four-fold increase. This rapid increase in operating expenses was
due largely to the cessation of the Company's mutual aid business
and growing customer acquisition costs.
Then, on September 8, 2021, Waterdrop issued a press release
announcing the Company's financial results for the quarter ended
June 30, 2021. The release stated that Waterdrop's operating losses
had continued to accelerate, totaling RMB815.4 million (US$126.3
million) for the quarter, compared with an operating profit of
RMB7.2 million for the same period of 2020. This was once again due
to a sharp increase in the Company's operating costs and expenses,
as the Company's operating costs and expenses during the quarter
increased by RMB1,081.1 million, or 160.5% year over year, to
RMB1,754.7 million (US$271.8 million) from RMB673.6 million for the
same period of 2020. Since the IPO, Waterdrop's ADS price has
fallen below $3.00 per ADS, representing a decline of more than 75%
from the offering price.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
WEIDNER PROPERTY: De La Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weidner Property
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Antonio Jesus
Jaramillo De La Cruz, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Weidner Property Management, LLC, a Washington limited liability
company, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00308697-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 22, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other employment - Civil Unlimited."
Weidner Apartment Homes -- https://www.weidner.com/ -- provides
smoke-free, pet-friendly apartments for rent in 11 U.S. states and
four Canadian provinces.[BN]
YALLA GROUP: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of October 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Yalla Group Ltd ("Yalla" or
the "Company") (NYSE: YALA) 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 Yalla stock
or options between September 30, 2020 and August 9, 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/YALA.
Cannot view this image? Visit:
https://orders.newsfilecorp.com/files/6455/98395_3acb8e1b34618943_001.jpg
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: Yalla
and its senior executive made misleading statements to investors
and failed to disclose that Yalla overstated its user metrics and
revenue and, as a result, Yalla's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 19, 2021, Swan Street Research ("Swan Street") published a
report (the "Swan Street Report") addressing Yalla, entitled "Is
Yalla Group a Multi $B Fraud? The 'Clubhouse of the Middle East'
UAE Tech Unicorn that Never Was." The Swan Street Report alleged,
among other things, that the Company has been inflating its
financial metrics, including its user data and its revenue, and
characterized Yalla's financial statements as "not credible."
On this news, the price of Yalla ADS fell $1.31 per share, or
7.15%, to close at $17.01 per ADS on May 19, 2021.
The next day, May 20, 2021, analyst The Bear Cave issued a report
entitled, "Problems at Yalla Group," and Gotham City Research also
tweeted that it was shorting Yalla Group ADSs.
On this news, the price of Yalla Group ADSs fell an additional 6%.
Finally, on August 9, 2021, Yalla Group issued a press release
entitled, "Yalla Group Limited Announces Unaudited Second Quarter
2021 Financial Results," which disclosed that Yalla Group had
quarterly revenue of $66.6 million, which did not meet analysts'
expectations.
On this news, the price of Yalla Group ADSs fell nearly 19%,
further 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 Yalla's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
[*] Class Action Funders Face Further Restrictions in Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurancenews.com.au reports that class action funders and lawyers
face further restrictions under draft legislation that the Federal
Government has released following recommendations from a
Parliamentary committee inquiry.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Attorney-General Michaelia Cash say
the draft bill aims to ensure class action participants are
adequately compensated as well as preventing litigation funders and
law firms from taking disproportionate fees in the process.
The proposed laws would establish a "rebuttable presumption" that a
return to class action members of less than 70% of gross proceeds
is not fair and reasonable.
Marsh Head of Financial and Professional Liability
Craig Claughton says the bill is positive from an insurance
perspective, with the number of overseas-based litigation funders
operating locally surging in recent years as they have benefitted
from high returns.
"I think it will curb the enthusiasm of litigation funders," he
told insuranceNEWS.com.au. "They will be very careful about which
cases they choose to put their capital towards."
Insurers highlighted the impact of increased class action activity
on the directors' and officers' insurance market in appearances
before the Parliamentary inquiry last year.
The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA) says
plans to limit fees will threaten access to justice for millions of
people as it would make many class actions unviable and limit the
number of actions filed.
"To be clear, this bill is about making life easier for company
directors and executives by shielding them from the legal
consequences of negligence or wrongdoing resulting in financial or
physical harm to Australians," ALFA Chairman John Walker said.
ALFA says fees attached to class actions are reducing naturally as
a result of heightened competition among funders and law firms in
class actions.
The consultation period on the draft bill and regulations was set
to closes on Oct. 6. [GN]
[*] Class-Action Suit Over Allstate 401(k) Plan Can Go Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ginger Szala at thinkadvisor.com reports that class-action lawsuit
against Allstate Corp. and its 401(k) fiduciaries, that complains
about Northern Trust, Financial Engines and Alight Financial
Advisors, can go forward after a judge in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the defendants' motion
to dismiss the suit on Tuesday.
The complaints against Allstate et al. are being brought by seven
current and former Allstate employees as well as on behalf of two
"putative" classes of beneficiaries. The plaintiffs stated that the
company's 401(k) plan's fiduciaries "made and failed to remove
imprudent investments, saddled the plan with excessive fees and
caused the plan to make prohibited transactions" under the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act.
The lawsuit, against Allstate and its plan fiduciaries, complains
about Northern Trust, which offered the only target date funds in
the Allstate investment options; Financial Engines, which provided
"robo-advice" to the 401(k); and Alight Financial Advisors, which
provided "professional management."
Northern Trust, Financial Engines and Alight are not named as
defendants.
According to the suit, at the end of 2019, $700 million was
invested across the 11 TDFs. Participants could opt into the
professional management program, which charged an asset-based fee
that allowed it to assume discretionary authority over a plan
participant's account. Financial Engines provided online advice and
charged a flat fee to all participants for "the ability to access
investment advice in the plan's portal. Financial Engines ran these
programs from 2014 until 2017," according to the suit.
District Judge Manish S. Shah noted in the dismissal that the
result of the robo-advisor was "largely standardized (not
customized) portfolios for each participant, typically without
human interaction between an advisor and a participant."
Alight replaced Financial Engines in 2017 but hired Financial
Engines to provide sub-advisory services, according to the
document. Alight charged participants on a tiered-fee schedule,
.45% for the first $100,000 to .25% for amounts above $250,000, for
its professional management.
"Financial Engines charged higher fees," according to the lawsuit.
"So, the more money in a participant's account, the more money
Financial Engines and Alight made, even though no additional costs
or services had been rendered. From 2015 to 2019, plan participants
paid Financial Engines and later Alight anywhere between $1,265,509
and $2,667,972 in annual advisory fees."
The plaintiffs also alleged that Allstate "constructed a plan with
far too many layers of fees, and for participants who signed up for
Financial Engines (and later, Alight), the total fees were so high
it was difficult to break even on their investments."
The plaintiffs alleged that Allstate and its plan fiduciaries
"turned a blind-eye to a pay-to-play kickback scheme" between
Financial Engines and the plan's recordkeeper that exclusively
featured Financial Engines to its clients.
As for Northern Trust, the TDFs "performed worse than 70 to 90
percent of comparable funds, but the Allstate defendants failed to
remove the suite as the plan's default retirement investment
option," the plaintiffs stated.
Shah dismissed the defendants' motion, asking for defendants to
file a status report with proposed discovery schedule by Oct. 26.
Separately, Northern Trust was hit in June with a class-action suit
by its own current and former employees for loading up its
retirement plan with poorly performing proprietary target date
funds. The firm said in a statement at the time that it "believes
the Northern Focus Funds have been an appropriate vehicle for
retirement savings, and plans to defend itself from the lawsuit's
claims." [GN]
[*] NCR Accused of Siding with Banks in R60 Billion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran Ryan, writing for Moneyweb, reports that the National Credit
Regulator (NCR) is accused of siding with the banks in a massive
R60 billion class action suit brought by the Lungelo Lethu Human
Rights Foundation after it demanded the return of documents that
purport to show perjury by the banks and a pattern of selling
foreclosed houses for a song.
In a side case to the class action suit, the NCR has applied to the
Gauteng High Court to interdict Advocate Douglas Shaw, statistician
Garth Zietsman and some 200 others involved in the case from
disclosing confidential information obtained while Shaw and
Zietsman were doing work for the NCR.
The NCR is asking the court for an order demanding the return of
any and all NCR documents, statistics and other information
obtained by Shaw and Zietsman, including annexures filed by
Zietsman in support of the class action suit.
The NCR says it is bound by the provisions of the National Credit
Act, which obliges it to keep information confidential and to
ensure that it is used for the purpose for which it was intended.
Failure to return the confidential information could result in harm
to the customers and banks, and could create a liability on the
part of the NCR.
"This is tantamount to the police investigating a murder and
finding the murder weapon and the culprit, only to be told to hand
over all evidence to the culprit," says Shaw.
"We have evidence the banks have been selling properties at a
fraction of their market worth and they have been lying about it
for years before the courts.
"The real harm that has been done here is to the banks' customers
whose properties have been repossessed.
"This is a national scandal and a disgrace, and we look forward to
arguing this in court."
The information obtained by Shaw and Zietsman shows repossessed
properties have been sold for 50-60% of their market value through
sheriffs' auctions around the country.
Alarm bell sounded years ago
The NCR says the information was obtained in 2015 while conducting
an audit and compliance check. Shaw was brought in as legal
counsel, and Zeitsman as statistician.
Shaw recommended instituting legal action against certain banks
(for unlawfully selling repossessed properties at below market
price).
The NCR decided against pursuing legal action against the banks as
the Rules Board for Courts of Law was reviewing the rules
applicable to the sale in execution of repossessed properties. The
Rules Board has subsequently changed the court rules to allow
judges to set a reserve or floor price when granting a sale in
execution order.
In his answering affidavit to the NCR, Zietsman says the court
should not grant the NCR the order it is requesting because "the
basic test for whether a document should be submitted is relevance
and the documents are very relevant".
He adds: "[Zietsman's founding] affidavit reveals that the banks
have been perjuring the court in this matter by pretending (a) they
had no awareness that they had sold thousands of properties for
much less than value and (b) that they have no methods of valuing
the market value of a property which in their papers they deny.
These are highly material and relevant matters."
NCR 'a captured institution'
Zietsman goes on to say the documents the NCR wants returned are in
any event public documents available through the Deeds Registry.
"The mandate of the NCR is to protect consumers against behaviour
of credit providers that is unlawful and/or unconstitutional. In
this application it acts as a defender of the banks against the
consumer and has therefore failed in its mandate and it is
submitted that it is a captured institution and that this should be
investigated by a high level commission for regulatory capture."
There is an aspect to the demand that is absurd, adds Zietsman, in
that the NCR purports to protect those named in the database
-- the very same people who stand to receive large amounts of money
should the class action succeed.
A person cannot rightfully be 'protected' against their own clear
interest, he argues.
Zietsman says the annexures attached to his affidavit have blanked
out the names of the parties and cannot therefore be claimed to
violate confidentiality. He nevertheless is asking the court to
allow the original database, with full names disclosed, to be
restored.
"Whatever may be said about whether the NCR is entitled to its
statistics back, it certainly cannot be said that it is entitled to
my affidavit which is my opinion which I have never been paid for
and thus remains my confidential information and I choose to share
with the applicants in this matter, and thus this court," he
deposes.
In response to questions sent to it by Moneyweb, the NCR replies
that Zietsman's claim that the NCR is a captured institution that
has failed in its mandate to serve consumers is inflammatory.
[These] accusations are indeed inflammatory and unjustified. It is
unethical and unlawful for Adv Shaw and Mr Zietsman to use the
information they obtained from the NCR for their own litigation.
This information is protected from unlawful disclosure by the
National Credit Act (sections 68(1) and 156(1)) and the Protection
of Personal Information Act.
Sales in execution of immovable property [houses] are governed by
the Uniform Rules of Court administered by the Department of
Justice and the Rules Board for Courts of Law. In particular, Rule
46 of the Uniform Rules of Court. In a series of judgments, the
National Consumer Tribunal has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to
review sales in execution of immovable property.
The NCR made oral and written submissions to the Rules Board during
their consultation meetings on changes to Rule 46. This
consultation process resulted in changes to the Rule to offer more
protection to consumers during sales in execution of their
residential immovable properties. The changes include the court
setting a reserve price for sales in execution.
Their claim that the NCR is captured is scurrilous and strongly
denied.
Shaw and the Lungelo Lethu Human Rights Foundation have further
argued that the NCR should join the class action as amicus curiae
(friend of the court) in defence of consumers whose properties were
repossessed at a fraction of market worth, rather than seeking - as
is claimed - to run air cover for the mortgage banks by seeking to
recall crucial evidence that will assist in proving wrongdoing.
The NCR replies:
The NCR is cited as a party to the class action and will determine
at the appropriate time the submissions it wishes to make to the
court.
Their claim that the NCR is protecting banks is also scurrilous and
strongly denied. [GN]
[*] Winston & Strawn Discusses Restoring Justice for Workers Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina G. Eash, Esq., Alexandra Aurisch, Esq., and Jason Campbell,
Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report
that in July, Congressmen Robert C. Scott (VA-03) and Jerrold
Nadler (NY-10) introduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act,
which seeks to eliminate arbitration agreements in the employment
context. They have done so while Congress is already considering
(again) whether to eliminate predispute arbitration agreements as
well as class action waivers in employment, consumer, antitrust,
and civil rights litigation -- an action with enormous potential
consequences for businesses and employers. Earlier this year,
Congressman Hank Johnson Jr. (D-GA) and Senator Richard Blumenthal
(D-CT) introduced the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (the
"FAIR Act"). The House passed the bill in 2019, but the Senate --
then under Republican control -- never moved on it.
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed
that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") strongly supports
arbitration and enforcing class action waivers. The FAIR Act is
directed against that prevailing current. It would amend the FAA to
expressly invalidate predispute arbitration agreements and class,
collective, and joint action waivers in employment, consumer,
antitrust, and civil rights disputes. If passed as currently
drafted, the bill would invalidate predispute arbitration
agreements and group action waivers to the extent they would have
covered a dispute that arises or accrues after the bill becomes
law—even in agreements signed before the bill's passage.
Arbitration provisions in collective bargaining agreements would
not be affected, but the bill's reach appears otherwise unlimited
in the context of employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights
disputes.
The FAIR Act's intent is to reach only predispute agreements, so
litigants will remain free to choose arbitration after a dispute
arises. But whether litigants will voluntarily opt for arbitration
if the bill passes remains to be seen.
For now, the bill is pending before the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees. Winston's Class Action and Labor & Employment teams are
closely following legal developments in this area and will provide
updates as they become available. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***